Pros of Kong

• More mature and established project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Offers a wider range of plugins and integrations out-of-the-box
• Provides a user-friendly GUI for easier management and configuration

Cons of Kong

• Higher resource consumption, especially in large-scale deployments
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Kong (Lua):

local kong = kong
local request_uri = ngx.var.request_uri

if string.match(request_uri, "^/api/") then
    kong.service.request.set_path("/v1" .. request_uri)
end

APISIX (Lua):

local core = require("apisix.core")
local ctx = ngx.ctx

if string.match(ctx.var.uri, "^/api/") then
    ctx.var.upstream_uri = "/v1" .. ctx.var.uri
end

Both examples show how to rewrite the request path, but APISIX's approach is more concise and uses its core module for better performance and integration with the framework.

While Kong and APISIX are both powerful API gateways, Kong offers a more comprehensive feature set and ecosystem support, whereas APISIX provides better performance and flexibility for customization. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and scalability needs.

Pros of Envoy

• More extensive feature set and broader ecosystem
• Higher performance and scalability for large-scale deployments
• Strong support for modern microservices architectures

Cons of Envoy

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Heavier resource footprint, potentially overkill for smaller projects
• Less focus on API management specific features

Code Comparison

APISIX configuration example:

routes:
  -
    uri: "/hello"
    upstream:
      type: roundrobin
      nodes:
        "127.0.0.1:1980": 1

Envoy configuration example:

static_resources:
  listeners:
  - address:
      socket_address:
        address: 0.0.0.0
        port_value: 8080
    filter_chains:
    - filters:
      - name: envoy.filters.network.http_connection_manager
        typed_config:
          "@type": type.googleapis.com/envoy.extensions.filters.network.http_connection_manager.v3.HttpConnectionManager
          stat_prefix: ingress_http
          route_config:
            name: local_route
            virtual_hosts:
            - name: local_service
              domains: ["*"]
              routes:
              - match:
                  prefix: "/"
                route:
                  cluster: some_service

Both APISIX and Envoy are powerful API gateways and proxies, but they cater to different use cases. APISIX is more focused on API management and easier to set up, while Envoy offers more advanced features and better performance at scale, albeit with increased complexity.

Pros of Traefik

• Easier setup and configuration with automatic service discovery
• Native support for Docker and other container orchestration platforms
• More extensive built-in middleware options for common use cases

Cons of Traefik

• Less flexible for complex custom configurations compared to APISIX
• Limited plugin ecosystem and extensibility options
• May have higher resource usage in certain scenarios

Code Comparison

APISIX route configuration:

local route = {
    uri = "/hello",
    upstream = {
        type = "roundrobin",
        nodes = {
            ["127.0.0.1:80"] = 1
        }
    }
}

Traefik route configuration:

http:
  routers:
    my-router:
      rule: "Path(`/hello`)"
      service: my-service
  services:
    my-service:
      loadBalancer:
        servers:
          - url: "http://127.0.0.1:80"

Both APISIX and Traefik are powerful API gateways and reverse proxies, but they cater to different use cases and preferences. APISIX offers more flexibility and extensibility, while Traefik provides easier setup and integration with container environments. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and infrastructure setup.

Pros of NGINX

• Mature and battle-tested web server with extensive documentation
• Excellent performance and low resource usage
• Wide adoption and large ecosystem of modules

Cons of NGINX

• Less flexible for API gateway use cases
• Limited built-in features for microservices architectures
• Steeper learning curve for advanced configurations

Code Comparison

NGINX configuration:

http {
    server {
        listen 80;
        location / {
            proxy_pass http://backend;
        }
    }
}

APISIX configuration:

routes:
  - uri: /*
    upstream:
      type: roundrobin
      nodes:
        "backend:80": 1

Summary

NGINX is a robust web server and reverse proxy, excelling in performance and stability. APISIX, built on top of NGINX, focuses on API gateway functionality with additional features for microservices. APISIX offers a more user-friendly configuration syntax and built-in plugins for API management, while NGINX provides a broader range of general-purpose web server capabilities. The choice between them depends on specific use cases, with APISIX being more suitable for API-centric architectures and NGINX for general web serving and reverse proxy needs.

Pros of Istio

• More comprehensive service mesh solution with advanced traffic management, security, and observability features
• Better suited for complex microservices architectures and multi-cluster deployments
• Stronger integration with Kubernetes and cloud-native ecosystems

Cons of Istio

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup compared to APISIX
• Higher resource consumption and potential performance overhead
• Less flexibility for non-Kubernetes environments

Code Comparison

APISIX route configuration:

local _M = {
    version = 0.1,
    priority = 0,
    name = "example-plugin",
    schema = {
        type = "object",
        properties = {
            key = {type = "string"}
        }
    }
}

Istio virtual service configuration:

apiVersion: networking.istio.io/v1alpha3
kind: VirtualService
metadata:
  name: reviews-route
spec:
  hosts:
  - reviews.prod.svc.cluster.local
  http:
  - route:
    - destination:
        host: reviews.prod.svc.cluster.local
        subset: v2

Both APISIX and Istio provide powerful routing capabilities, but Istio's configuration is more Kubernetes-native and offers more advanced traffic management features. APISIX's configuration is more lightweight and flexible, making it easier to use in various environments.

Pros of Harbor

• Comprehensive container registry solution with built-in security scanning
• Supports multi-tenancy and role-based access control
• Provides replication and distribution features for global deployments

Cons of Harbor

• More complex setup and maintenance compared to APISIX
• Focused specifically on container registry, less versatile for general API management
• Heavier resource requirements due to its comprehensive feature set

Code Comparison

Harbor (Go):

func (ra *RepositoryAPI) Delete() {
    repoName := ra.GetString(":repo")
    if len(repoName) == 0 {
        ra.SendBadRequestError(errors.New("repo name is empty"))
        return
    }
}

APISIX (Lua):

function _M.rewrite(conf, ctx)
    local uri = ctx.var.uri
    local upstream_uri = core.request.get_header(ctx, "X-Forwarded-Prefix") or ""
    ctx.var.upstream_uri = upstream_uri .. uri
end

Harbor focuses on container registry management with Go, while APISIX is a lightweight API gateway written in Lua. Harbor offers more built-in features for container management, security, and access control, but APISIX provides greater flexibility for general API routing and management. APISIX is easier to set up and maintain, making it more suitable for smaller deployments or those primarily focused on API gateway functionality.