Docker vs Kong
| Criterion | Docker | Kong | Docker reason | Kong reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 Identity-bound per-call authorization (25) | 3 | 6 | HTTP modes require a bearer token, but calls are not checked against agent identity or the person behind it. [docker-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) | 6 | 7 | Secrets are managed by the gateway and injected into server containers, so clients do not hold them. [docker-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. [docker-gh] | No human approval step was found on the pages read. [kong-mcp] |
| G4 Server registry and discovery (10) | 7 | 6 | Catalogs, profiles and a community registry import manage which servers run. [docker-gh][docker-docs] | An MCP Registry is in tech preview and MCP servers can be catalogued in Konnect. [kong-mcp] |
| G5 Audit evidence (10) | 3 | 7 | OpenTelemetry instrumentation exists, but per-call logs tied to a person were not found. [docker-gh] | An MCP traffic audit log and OpenTelemetry metrics are documented. [kong-mcp] |
| G6 Standards (10) | 5 | 7 | Handles remote OAuth through DCR, which the 2026-07-28 spec deprecates in favour of CIMD. [docker-gh][mcp-0728] | 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 under MIT and runs locally with Docker. [docker-gh][docker-docs] | Konnect and self-managed gateways are documented, but a price for the MCP features was not found on the pages read. [kong-mcp] |
| Total | 4.65 | 5.60 | Weighted sum divided by 100. | |
In short: Kong totals 5.60 and Docker totals 4.65 on our weighted rubric, a gap of 0.95 points. Kong is ahead on per-call authorization, credential brokering, audit and standards. Docker is ahead on registry and 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 4.65 for Docker. The largest weighted difference is on per-call authorization. Docker is ahead on registry and deployment.
Pick Docker if deployment matters most to you.
It scores 9 against 4 there: free under MIT and runs locally with Docker.
Pick Kong if per-call authorization matters most to you.
It scores 6 against 3 there: the AI MCP OAuth2 plugin authenticates every MCP request, but per-call checks against the person an agent acts for are not described.
How do deployment and pricing compare?
| Parameter | Docker | Kong |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Local or self-hosted with Docker. | Kong Konnect or self-managed Kong gateways. |
| Price as published | Free under MIT. | Not found on the pages read. |
| Identity provider | No direct integration was documented on the pages read. | Yes. The OAuth2 plugin works against an external authorization server and introspection endpoint. |
Full datasheets: Docker MCP Gateway and Kong AI Gateway (MCP).
Frequently asked questions
- Which is better, Docker or Kong?
- On our rubric Kong totals 5.60 against 4.65 for Docker. The better choice depends on which criteria matter most to you.
- Do Docker and Kong work with my identity provider?
- Docker: No direct integration was documented on the pages read. Kong: Yes. The OAuth2 plugin works against an external authorization server and introspection endpoint.
- How do Docker and Kong differ on price?
- Docker: Free under MIT. Kong: Not found on the pages read.
By The Datasheet desk · Published and reviewed 2026-11-03