WSO2 AI Gateway vs Kong: Which Platform Powers Your AI Strategy?

AI agents are consuming APIs at an unprecedented rate. Every AI-powered chatbot, autonomous workflow, and intelligent automation system needs to interact with backend services through APIs. However, there is a fundamental problem. Most API gateways were designed for human developers writing code, not autonomous AI agents making real-time decisions. This gap has now created a brand new category, respectively called AI gateways. These are API management platforms that are specifically designed to handle the unique requirements of AI agent traffic, which encompass semantic caching, model routing, prompt injection protection, token governance, and MCP (Model Context Protocol) support.

Two platforms have emerged as leaders in this space: WSO2's AI Gateway and Kong's AI Gateway. Both of these platforms are able to offer AI-specific capabilities, but they take fundamentally different approaches. The question isn't which one has more features, it is actually which architecture actually solves the problems your organization faces when deploying AI at scale.

Now, let's break down how these platforms compare across the dimensions that matter for production AI deployments.

Architecture Philosophy: Integration vs. Extension

The most fundamental difference between WSO2 and Kong isn't in their feature lists, it is in their architectural philosophy.

Kong's Approach: Plugin-Based Extension

Kong built its AI capabilities as plugins that are layered on top of its existing API gateway infrastructure. The Kong AI Gateway Plugin adds AI-specific features like prompt engineering, model routing, and request/response transformation to Kong's core proxy functionality.

How it works:

• Deploy Kong Gateway (open source or enterprise)
• Install AI Gateway Plugin
• Configure AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Azure OpenAI, etc.)
• Route traffic through Kong's proxy with AI transformations applied

The benefit: If you're already running Kong for traditional API management, adding AI capabilities is relatively straightforward. The plugin architecture means that you can enable AI features selectively on specific routes without changing your entire infrastructure.

The limitation: Plugins extend functionality, but they don't fundamentally change the architecture. Kong's core design assumes request/response proxying, which means AI-specific optimizations (like semantic caching or multi-model orchestration) are constrained by the underlying proxy model.

WSO2's Approach: AI-Native Platform

WSO2 designed its AI Gateway as a purpose-built platform for AI workloads, not as plugins added to an existing gateway. The architecture treats AI agents as first-class consumers, with capabilities like MCP server generation, semantic caching, and AI-specific governance built into the platform's core rather than bolted on afterward.

How it works:

• Deploy WSO2 API Control Plane (centralized governance)
• Connect AI Gateway (optimized for agent traffic)
• Automatically generate MCP servers from OpenAPI specs
• Federate with existing WSO2 gateways or third-party gateways (AWS, Kong, etc.)

The benefit: AI-specific optimizations aren't constrained by legacy proxy architecture. Features like semantic caching and multi-provider routing are native to the platform, delivering better performance and lower operational complexity.

The limitation: If you're heavily invested in Kong's ecosystem and not running WSO2 infrastructure, the switching cost is higher. However, WSO2's federation capabilities allow gradual migration by federating Kong gateways into WSO2's control plane.

Feature Comparison: What Each Platform Actually Delivers

Let's compare the concrete capabilities each platform provides for AI workloads.

Model Context Protocol (MCP) Support

WSO2:

• Automatic MCP server generation from existing OpenAPI specifications
• MCP Hub for centralized discovery of AI-accessible capabilities
• Governed catalog where platform teams control which APIs appear to agents
• Semantic search allowing agents to find relevant endpoints by intent, not keywords
• Status: Production-ready, integrated with API Control Plane

Kong:

• MCP support exists but requires manual configuration
• No automated generation from OpenAPI specs
• Discovery handled through Kong's existing service registry
• Status: Available but less automated than WSO2's approach

Verdict: WSO2's automated MCP generation is a significant differentiator. Organizations with 50+ APIs save weeks of engineering effort by not having to manually write MCP servers for each API.

Semantic Caching

WSO2:

• Native semantic caching that understands query intent, not just exact strings
• Vector-based similarity matching (e.g., "What's the return policy?" and "How do I return items?" hit the same cache)
• Configurable similarity thresholds
• Reported 40-60% cost reduction for repetitive agent queries
• Status: Production-ready with proven ROI data

Kong:

• Traditional caching available through Kong's existing cache plugin
• Primarily exact-match based (HTTP response caching)
• Limited semantic understanding of AI queries
• Status: Basic caching works but lacks AI-specific semantic capabilities

Verdict: WSO2's semantic caching is purpose-built for AI workloads and delivers measurable cost savings. Kong's traditional caching helps, but it doesn't understand when different queries ask the same question.

Multi-Provider Model Routing

WSO2:

• Intelligent routing based on semantic analysis of requests
• Route simple queries to cheaper models (Llama 3), complex reasoning to premium models (GPT-4, Claude Opus)
• Cost optimization through automatic model selection
• Status: Available as part of AI Gateway platform

Kong:

• Model routing available through AI Gateway Plugin
• Configuration-based routing rules
• Supports major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Azure OpenAI, Cohere, Mistral)
• Status: Available, requires manual routing configuration

Verdict: Both platforms support multi-provider routing. Kong's plugin approach gives more granular control for teams that want explicit routing rules. WSO2's semantic routing optimizes costs automatically but with less manual control.

AI-Specific Governance and Security

WSO2:

• Automatic PII detection and masking in API responses before they reach agents
• Prompt guardrails to detect and block injection attacks
• Content filtering on both inputs and outputs
• Unified audit trails showing complete agent workflows across federated gateways
• Status: Integrated governance platform

Kong:

• Request/response transformation through AI Gateway Plugin
• Standard Kong security features (authentication, rate limiting, ACLs)
• PII redaction possible through custom plugins
• Status: Standard security features with AI extensions available

Verdict: WSO2's governance capabilities are more comprehensive for AI-specific risks like PII exposure and prompt injection. Kong provides solid traditional security but requires more custom development for AI-specific threats.

Token and Cost Governance

WSO2:

• Token-based usage quotas beyond traditional rate limits
• Circuit breakers to prevent runaway agent costs
• Cost attribution by agent/team/project
• Alerts when token consumption exceeds thresholds
• Status: Built into AI Gateway platform

Kong:

• Rate limiting through standard Kong plugins
• Request counting and basic quota management
• Cost tracking requires integration with external systems
• Status: Basic rate limiting works, advanced cost governance requires custom development

Verdict: WSO2's token-specific governance prevents the "$10K surprise bill from a buggy agent" scenario. Kong's rate limiting helps but isn't optimized for token-based cost control.

Observability for AI Traffic

WSO2:

• Unified observability across all federated gateways
• Agent-specific metrics (requests per agent, success rates, token consumption)
• Trace analysis for multi-step agent workflows
• Integration with Moesif for advanced API analytics and usage-based billing
• Status: Integrated observability platform

Kong:

• Standard Kong metrics and logging
• Integration with Prometheus, Datadog, Splunk, etc.
• Request/response logging for AI traffic
• Status: Traditional observability works for AI traffic

Verdict: WSO2's agent-specific observability provides deeper insights into AI behavior. Kong's traditional metrics work but aren't optimized for understanding agent patterns.

Federation Capabilities

WSO2:

• Native federation architecture with API Control Plane
• Manage WSO2 gateways, AWS API Gateway, Kong, Solace, and custom gateways from single control plane
• Automated API discovery across federated gateways
• Consistent policy enforcement regardless of gateway vendor
• Status: Production-ready federation platform

Kong:

• Kong Konnect provides centralized management for multiple Kong gateways
• Primarily designed for managing Kong instances, not heterogeneous gateway types
• Multi-cloud Kong deployment supported
• Status: Strong for Kong-to-Kong federation, limited for multi-vendor scenarios

Verdict: WSO2's federation architecture is fundamentally different. If you need to manage AI traffic across multiple gateway types (including Kong), WSO2's control plane provides capabilities Kong doesn't offer. If you're all-in on Kong, Konnect handles multi-Kong federation well.

Deployment and Operational Complexity

Kong AI Gateway Deployment:

• Install Kong Gateway (OSS or Enterprise)
• Install AI Gateway Plugin
• Configure AI provider credentials
• Set up routing rules for AI traffic

Operational Considerations:

• Relatively simple if you're already running Kong
• Plugin updates are separate from gateway updates
• Scaling follows Kong's standard patterns (database-backed or DB-less mode)
• Time to first AI-powered API: Days for teams familiar with Kong

WSO2 AI Gateway Deployment:

• Deploy WSO2 API Control Plane (SaaS or self-hosted)
• Connect AI Gateway to control plane
• Upload OpenAPI specs for automatic MCP generation
• Configure federated gateways if integrating with existing infrastructure

Operational Considerations:

• More complex initial setup due to control plane architecture
• Centralized governance simplifies ongoing operations at scale
• Federation adds complexity but enables multi-gateway management
• Time to first AI-powered API: Days to weeks depending on federation requirements

Verdict: Kong is faster to deploy for simple use cases. WSO2 requires more upfront investment but scales better for complex federated environments.

Pricing and Licensing

Kong

Open Source (Free):

• Core Kong Gateway is free and open source
• AI Gateway Plugin requires Kong Enterprise

Kong Enterprise:

• Pricing based on annual contract (not publicly disclosed)
• Typically scales with number of gateway instances and traffic volume
• AI Gateway Plugin included in Enterprise license
• Support and SLA included

Total Cost of Ownership:

• Lower initial cost if using OSS Kong
• Enterprise pricing competitive for Kong-only deployments
• Additional costs for external observability tools, caching infrastructure, etc.

WSO2

Pricing Model:

• API Control Plane pricing (SaaS or self-hosted)
• Typically scales with number of APIs, gateways, and traffic volume
• AI Gateway capabilities included in platform
• Federation capabilities included

Total Cost of Ownership:

• Higher initial investment due to platform approach
• Includes capabilities that would require additional tools with Kong (semantic caching, MCP generation, advanced governance)
• ROI improves with scale and complexity

Verdict: Kong is more cost-effective for simple deployments focused solely on Kong infrastructure. WSO2's pricing reflects its broader platform capabilities, delivering better ROI for organizations needing federation, advanced governance, or managing heterogeneous gateway environments.

Real-World Use Case Comparison

Let's look at how each platform handles a concrete scenario: A fintech company deploying AI agents for customer service automation.

Requirements:

• AI agents need to access 100+ internal APIs
• Must support multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, internal models)
• PII in API responses must be masked before reaching agents
• Token costs must be controlled and attributed by team
• Existing infrastructure includes AWS API Gateway and on-premises systems
• Must comply with financial services regulations (audit trails, data residency)

Kong Approach:

What works well:

• Kong AI Gateway Plugin handles multi-provider routing
• Standard Kong authentication and rate limiting secure APIs
• Request/response transformation can mask some PII
• Integrates with existing Kong infrastructure if already deployed

Challenges:

• Manual MCP server creation for 100+ APIs (weeks of engineering effort)
• PII masking requires custom plugin development
• Token governance requires external cost tracking system
• AWS API Gateway and on-premises systems need separate management (no federation)
• Audit trails require integration with external logging systems

Implementation timeline: 3 months with a dedicated team

WSO2 Approach:

What works well:

• Automatic MCP server generation from existing OpenAPI specs (hours instead of weeks)
• Built-in PII detection and masking
• Token-based quotas and cost attribution included
• Federation with AWS API Gateway and on-premises gateways through control plane
• Unified audit trails across all federated gateways for compliance

Challenges:

• More complex initial setup due to control plane deployment
• Team learning curve if not familiar with WSO2 platform
• Higher upfront investment

Implementation timeline: 3-4 months including federation setup, faster if WSO2 infrastructure already exists

Verdict: For this scenario, WSO2's purpose-built AI capabilities and federation architecture deliver faster time-to-value despite higher initial complexity. Kong works but requires more custom development and external integrations.

Migration and Integration Paths

If You're Currently Running Kong:

Option 1: Stay with Kong, Add AI Plugin

• Fastest path if Kong meets your needs
• Limited to Kong's AI capabilities
• No federation with other gateway types

Option 2: Federate Kong into WSO2 Control Plane

• Keep existing Kong infrastructure running
• Add WSO2's AI Gateway for new AI-specific workloads
• Manage both through WSO2's control plane
• Gradual migration path without "big bang" replacement

If You're Currently Running WSO2:

Option 1: Add WSO2 AI Gateway

• Natural extension of existing platform
• Leverage existing API Control Plane investment
• Unified governance across traditional and AI traffic

Option 2: Evaluate Kong for Specific Use Cases

• Consider Kong if you have specific requirements Kong's plugin ecosystem addresses
• Can federate Kong instances into WSO2 control plane for unified governance

If You're Starting Fresh:

Choose Kong if:

• Simple AI use case focused on model routing and basic transformations
• All-in on Kong ecosystem with no need for multi-vendor federation
• Cost-sensitive and willing to build custom integrations for advanced features

Choose WSO2 if:

• Need to manage multiple gateway types (AWS, Kong, on-premises, etc.)
• Require AI-specific governance (PII masking, prompt guardrails, token quotas)
• Want automated MCP generation and semantic caching out of the box
• Planning for scale and complexity with federated architecture

The Bottom Line: Architecture Matters More Than Feature Lists

The WSO2 vs Kong decision isn't about counting features, it's about architectural fit for your organization's reality.

Kong's strength is its plugin-based flexibility and simplicity for organizations already invested in Kong's ecosystem. If you're running Kong Gateway and need to add AI capabilities quickly, Kong's AI Gateway Plugin is the path of least resistance. For straightforward AI use cases without complex federation or advanced governance requirements, Kong is able to deliver value with minimal operational overhead.

WSO2's strength is its purpose-built AI platform designed for enterprise scale and complexity. If you're managing multiple gateway types, and you need automated MCP generation for large API portfolios, require AI-specific governance and security, or want semantic caching and advanced observability, WSO2's architecture delivers capabilities that Kong's plugin model is not able to match.

The question you need to ask is: "Which architecture solves the problems you actually face?"

For organizations with simple, Kong-centric deployments: Kong's AI Gateway Plugin likely suffices.

For enterprises managing distributed, heterogeneous infrastructure with stringent governance requirements: WSO2's federated AI platform provides capabilities that justify the higher complexity and cost.

And here's the interesting middle path: WSO2's federation architecture means you don't have to choose exclusively. You can run Kong for specific workloads while federating it into WSO2's control plane, gaining the benefits of both platforms without a forced migration.

The future of AI infrastructure isn't monolithic. It's federated, heterogeneous, and requires platforms designed for this reality. WSO2's architecture wholeheartedly embraces this complexity. Kong's approach simplifies it by constraining scope.

Choose based on which model matches your organization's trajectory over the next 3-5 years, not just today's requirements.