agentgateway vs Kong
| Criterion | agentgateway | Kong | agentgateway reason | Kong reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 Identity-bound per-call authorization (25) | 6 | 6 | Fine-grained RBAC with a CEL policy engine can evaluate MCP requests, but the person behind an agent is not a documented input. [agw-gh] | The AI MCP OAuth2 plugin authenticates every MCP request, but per-call checks against the person an agent acts for are not described. [kong-oauth] |
| G2 Credential brokering (20) | 4 | 7 | Upstream auth is configurable, but brokering short-lived credentials so the agent never holds them was not described. [agw-gh] | Token exchange swaps the client's token for a different upstream token, though token passthrough is also available. [kong-oauth] |
| G3 Human approval and escalation (15) | 2 | 2 | No human approval step was found. [agw-gh] | No human approval step was found on the pages read. [kong-mcp] |
| G4 Server registry and discovery (10) | 4 | 6 | Tool federation across targets is documented, but an owned registry with discovery of unregistered servers was not. [agw-gh] | An MCP Registry is in tech preview and MCP servers can be catalogued in Konnect. [kong-mcp] |
| G5 Audit evidence (10) | 5 | 7 | OpenTelemetry metrics, logs and traces are documented; SIEM export tied to a person was not. [agw-gh] | An MCP traffic audit log and OpenTelemetry metrics are documented. [kong-mcp] |
| G6 Standards (10) | 7 | 7 | Supports JWT, OAuth, OAuth metadata and DCR endpoints, and TLS. [agw-gh] | Follows MCP authorization based on OAuth 2.1 with protected resource metadata and token exchange. [kong-oauth][kong-mcp] |
| G7 Deployment and buying clarity (10) | 9 | 4 | Free to self-host under Apache 2.0. [agw-gh] | Konnect and self-managed gateways are documented, but a price for the MCP features was not found on the pages read. [kong-mcp] |
| Total | 5.10 | 5.60 | Weighted sum divided by 100. | |
In short: Kong totals 5.60 and agentgateway totals 5.10 on our weighted rubric, a gap of 0.50 points. Kong is ahead on credential brokering, registry and audit. agentgateway is ahead on deployment. Choose by the criteria your agents depend on, then check deployment and pricing below.
Which one should I choose?
Kong totals 5.60 against 5.10 for agentgateway. The largest weighted difference is on credential brokering. agentgateway is ahead on deployment.
Pick agentgateway if deployment matters most to you.
It scores 9 against 4 there: free to self-host under Apache 2.0.
Pick Kong if credential brokering matters most to you.
It scores 7 against 4 there: token exchange swaps the client's token for a different upstream token, though token passthrough is also available.
How do deployment and pricing compare?
| Parameter | agentgateway | Kong |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Self-hosted binary or container. | Kong Konnect or self-managed Kong gateways. |
| Price as published | Free under Apache 2.0. | Not found on the pages read. |
| Identity provider | Yes. JWT and OAuth validation work against an external identity provider, including Entra endpoints. | Yes. The OAuth2 plugin works against an external authorization server and introspection endpoint. |
Full datasheets: agentgateway and Kong AI Gateway (MCP).
Frequently asked questions
- Which is better, agentgateway or Kong?
- On our rubric Kong totals 5.60 against 5.10 for agentgateway. The better choice depends on which criteria matter most to you.
- Do agentgateway and Kong work with my identity provider?
- agentgateway: Yes. JWT and OAuth validation work against an external identity provider, including Entra endpoints. Kong: Yes. The OAuth2 plugin works against an external authorization server and introspection endpoint.
- How do agentgateway and Kong differ on price?
- agentgateway: Free under Apache 2.0. Kong: Not found on the pages read.
By The Datasheet desk · Published and reviewed 2026-11-03