Golang vs Kong vs Urfav: A Detailed Comparison Guide

In the rapidly evolving landscape of modern software architecture, particularly with the proliferation of microservices and the growing complexity of distributed systems, the role of an API Gateway has become unequivocally central. It acts as the single entry point for clients, routing requests to the appropriate backend services, handling authentication, rate limiting, and myriad other crucial functionalities. Choosing the right gateway solution is a strategic decision that profoundly impacts performance, scalability, security, and developer productivity. This guide aims to provide an exhaustive comparison of three distinct approaches to managing your API infrastructure: leveraging Golang to build a custom API Gateway, adopting the feature-rich Kong API Gateway, and considering the broader category of "Custom-Built Solutions" (often a "Your Favorite" approach, which Golang exemplifies brilliantly). We will delve into their architectural paradigms, feature sets, performance characteristics, operational complexities, and ideal use cases to equip architects and developers with the insights needed to make an informed choice that aligns with their unique organizational needs and technical capabilities.

The journey through the world of API Gateways is not merely about selecting a piece of software; it's about defining an architectural philosophy. Do you prioritize ultimate control and bespoke optimization, even at the cost of significant development effort? Or do you lean towards a battle-tested, off-the-shelf solution that provides a wealth of features and a vibrant ecosystem, trading some flexibility for speed and reduced operational burden? Perhaps your needs extend beyond traditional REST APIs, venturing into the realm of AI services, demanding an API gateway that is specifically designed to manage and integrate complex AI models. Each path presents its own set of advantages and challenges, and understanding these nuances is critical for long-term success.

The Golang Approach: Building Your Own Custom API Gateway

Golang, often simply referred to as Go, has rapidly gained traction in the realm of backend development, particularly for high-performance network services, microservices, and infrastructure tools. Its inherent strengths — exceptional concurrency, efficient memory management, static typing, and a robust standard library — make it an incredibly compelling choice for crafting a custom API Gateway from the ground up. This approach offers unparalleled control and optimization potential, allowing organizations to tailor every aspect of the gateway to their precise requirements.

Why Golang for an API Gateway?

The decision to use Golang for building a custom API Gateway stems from several fundamental advantages inherent to the language itself. Firstly, Go's powerful concurrency model, based on goroutines and channels, enables developers to handle thousands, even millions, of concurrent connections with remarkable efficiency. This is absolutely critical for an API Gateway, which must simultaneously process a high volume of incoming requests and forward them to various backend services without becoming a bottleneck. Unlike thread-based concurrency models that can suffer from context switching overhead, goroutines are lightweight and managed by the Go runtime scheduler, leading to superior performance characteristics.

Secondly, Go's strong standard library, particularly the net/http package, provides a solid foundation for building HTTP servers and clients. This means that a significant portion of the core networking logic required for an API Gateway – such as reverse proxying, request routing, and response handling – can be implemented using well-tested and highly optimized components directly from the language's own ecosystem. Developers don't need to rely heavily on external, potentially unstable, third-party libraries for fundamental functionalities, enhancing the reliability and maintainability of the custom gateway.

Furthermore, Go's compiled nature results in highly performant binaries with a low memory footprint. This efficiency translates directly into reduced infrastructure costs and better resource utilization, especially in cloud-native environments where every unit of compute and memory matters. The language's simplicity and readability, enforced by strict formatting rules and a clear syntax, also contribute to faster development cycles and easier long-term maintenance, provided the team possesses the necessary expertise. For those seeking maximum performance and granular control over their API traffic, Golang presents a powerful and pragmatic choice.

Architectural Considerations for a Go-based Gateway

Building an API Gateway with Golang typically involves architecting a sophisticated reverse proxy that can perform much more than just forwarding requests. At its core, a Go-based gateway would utilize the net/http/httputil.ReverseProxy to redirect incoming client requests to various upstream services based on defined routing rules. However, the real power and complexity come from inserting custom middleware or handlers into the request processing chain.

A typical architecture would involve:

• Request Router: This component is responsible for parsing incoming request paths, headers, and query parameters to determine which backend service should receive the request. Frameworks like Gorilla Mux, Chi, or Gin can provide robust routing capabilities, allowing for pattern matching, path parameters, and method-based routing.
• Authentication & Authorization Layer: Before forwarding any request, the gateway must verify the identity of the client and ensure they have the necessary permissions to access the requested resource. This could involve validating JWTs, API keys, OAuth tokens, or integrating with an external identity provider. Go's flexibility allows for implementing highly specific and secure authentication flows.
• Rate Limiting: To protect backend services from overload and abuse, the gateway implements rate limiting. This can be achieved by tracking request counts per client (IP address, API key, etc.) over specific time windows, often backed by an in-memory store or a distributed cache like Redis. Go's concurrency primitives are excellent for building efficient, non-blocking rate limiters.
• Load Balancing: Once a backend service is identified, the gateway needs to decide which instance of that service should receive the request. Go can implement various load balancing algorithms, such as round-robin, least connections, or IP hash, by maintaining a list of healthy upstream service instances. Health checks for these instances are also crucial, constantly monitoring their availability.
• Request/Response Transformation: The gateway might need to modify requests before sending them to backend services or alter responses before sending them back to clients. This could include adding/removing headers, transforming payload structures, or enriching data. Go's strong typing and rich data structures make these transformations straightforward.
• Observability (Logging, Metrics, Tracing): A production-grade gateway must emit comprehensive logs, metrics (e.g., request latency, error rates), and distributed traces. Go's standard log package or popular libraries like Zap or Logrus for logging, Prometheus client libraries for metrics, and OpenTelemetry for tracing can be integrated to provide deep insights into API traffic and performance.

Each of these layers can be implemented as a chain of Go middleware functions, allowing for a modular and extensible design. The context package is fundamental here, enabling the passing of request-scoped values (like authentication details or trace IDs) through the middleware chain, ensuring that all subsequent handlers have access to relevant information without polluting function signatures.

Advantages of a Golang-based Gateway

The decision to build a custom API Gateway with Golang is often driven by a desire for specific benefits:

• Ultimate Control and Customization: This is perhaps the most significant advantage. A custom Go gateway can be precisely tailored to meet unique business logic, integration requirements, or security policies that might be difficult or impossible to implement with off-the-shelf solutions. There are no black boxes; every line of code is within the team's control.
• Exceptional Performance and Efficiency: Golang's compilation to native code, combined with its efficient concurrency model, allows for building extremely fast and low-latency gateways. For applications with stringent performance SLAs or high throughput demands, a finely tuned Go gateway can outperform generic solutions. Its low memory footprint also reduces operational costs.
• No Vendor Lock-in: By building your own gateway, you avoid dependency on a specific vendor's product roadmap, licensing terms, or ecosystem. This provides significant strategic flexibility and protects against future commercial or technical changes imposed by third-party providers.
• Cost-Effectiveness for Niche Cases: While the initial development cost can be high, for very specific, lean gateway implementations, a custom Go solution might avoid ongoing licensing fees associated with commercial API Gateway products, potentially leading to cost savings in the long run.
• Deep Integration with Existing Systems: For organizations with complex legacy systems or highly specific internal protocols, a custom Go gateway can be engineered to integrate seamlessly, acting as a powerful translation and adaptation layer.

Disadvantages of a Golang-based Gateway

Despite its numerous strengths, the custom Golang API Gateway approach comes with considerable drawbacks that must be carefully weighed:

• Significant Development Effort and Time: Building a production-grade API Gateway is a non-trivial undertaking. It involves implementing a wide array of features – routing, authentication, authorization, rate limiting, caching, logging, metrics, tracing, health checks, load balancing, security hardening, and more. This requires substantial engineering resources and time, significantly impacting time-to-market.
• Requires Deep Expertise: Developing a robust and secure API Gateway demands expertise not just in Golang, but also in network programming, distributed systems, security best practices, and performance optimization. A team without this specialized knowledge risks building an unstable, insecure, or inefficient gateway.
• Maintenance Burden: Once built, the custom gateway needs continuous maintenance, updates, and bug fixes. As new threats emerge, compliance requirements change, or backend services evolve, the gateway must adapt. This ongoing operational burden can divert valuable engineering resources from core product development.
• Reinventing the Wheel: Many features required in an API Gateway (e.g., OAuth validation, JWT processing, common rate-limiting algorithms) are standard and have been implemented countless times. Building these from scratch means reinvention, which introduces potential for bugs and security vulnerabilities that off-the-shelf solutions have already addressed.
• Slower Time-to-Market: The extensive development effort inherently means a longer lead time before the gateway is operational and capable of supporting production traffic. This can be a significant impediment for businesses needing to rapidly deploy new APIs or adapt to market changes.
• Lack of Out-of-the-Box Features: Unlike dedicated API Gateway products, a custom Go solution starts barebones. Features like a developer portal, advanced analytics dashboards, or sophisticated plugin mechanisms need to be designed and implemented explicitly, adding to the development load.

Ideal Use Cases for a Golang-based Gateway

A custom Go gateway is best suited for scenarios where:

• Extreme Performance is Paramount: Applications requiring ultra-low latency or exceptionally high throughput that cannot be met by existing solutions without significant overhead.
• Highly Specific Business Logic: When the gateway needs to embed highly specialized logic or deep integrations that are not supported by configurable products.
• Security-Sensitive Environments: Organizations with unique and stringent security requirements that necessitate granular control over every aspect of the request processing pipeline.
• Strong In-House Go Expertise: Teams with a deep understanding of Golang, network programming, and distributed systems, capable of building and maintaining complex infrastructure.
• Building a Core Product Component: When the gateway itself is a fundamental part of a larger, specialized product offering rather than a generic infrastructure component.

In essence, building an API Gateway with Golang is a powerful choice for those who value absolute control, bespoke optimization, and are willing to invest significant engineering resources to achieve it. It's a testament to the "build vs. buy" dilemma, leaning heavily towards "build" for strategic advantage.

The Kong Approach: Leveraging a Dedicated API Gateway Platform

Shifting from the "build-it-yourself" philosophy, Kong represents the "buy" or "adopt" strategy, offering a robust, feature-rich, and scalable API Gateway solution. Kong is an open-source, cloud-native API Gateway and microservices management layer that sits in front of your APIs, acting as an orchestrator for all external and internal requests. Built on top of Nginx and LuaJIT, Kong is designed to deliver high performance and reliability, while providing a comprehensive set of functionalities through its extensive plugin architecture.

Overview of Kong API Gateway

Kong emerged to address the complexities of managing and securing APIs in modern distributed architectures. It provides a flexible and powerful way to handle routing, authentication, traffic control, and observability for all your services. Its foundation on Nginx, a battle-tested web server, ensures high performance and stability, while the integration of LuaJIT allows for dynamic configuration and powerful plugin development without sacrificing speed.

Kong's core philosophy revolves around its plugin architecture. Almost every feature, from authentication mechanisms to rate limiting and traffic transformation, is implemented as a plugin. This modularity allows users to enable only the functionalities they need, keeping the gateway lean while providing a vast array of options for customization. Kong can be deployed in various environments, from on-premises data centers to cloud infrastructure, and supports deployment via Docker, Kubernetes, and traditional virtual machines.

The platform is backed by a strong open-source community and a commercial entity, Kong Inc., which offers enterprise-grade features and professional support, making it a viable solution for organizations of all sizes, from startups to large enterprises managing thousands of APIs.

Architectural Overview of Kong

Kong's architecture is typically split into two main components:

1. Data Plane: This is the core engine that handles all incoming client requests and proxies them to upstream services. It's built on Nginx and LuaJIT. The Data Plane executes the configured plugins in real-time, performing tasks like authentication, rate limiting, and traffic transformation. For high availability and scalability, multiple instances of the Data Plane can run concurrently, forming a cluster.
2. Control Plane: This component manages the configuration of the Data Plane instances. It provides an Admin API (a RESTful interface) and a graphical user interface (Kong Manager) for configuring routes, services, consumers, and plugins. The Control Plane also stores all configuration data in a database, historically PostgreSQL or Cassandra, though newer versions also support a "DB-less" mode using declarative configuration files, which is particularly suitable for GitOps workflows.

When a client sends a request to Kong:

1. The request hits one of the Data Plane instances.
2. The Data Plane consults its cached configuration (fetched from the Control Plane) to identify the matching Route.
3. Based on the Route, the associated Service and its Plugins are identified.
4. The Data Plane executes the plugins in a defined order (e.g., authentication, then rate limiting).
5. If all plugin checks pass, the Data Plane proxies the request to the upstream Service.
6. The response from the upstream Service might also pass through post-response plugins before being returned to the client.

This decoupled architecture allows for independent scaling of the Data Plane (for traffic handling) and the Control Plane (for configuration management), providing immense flexibility and resilience.

Key Features of Kong API Gateway

Kong boasts an extensive array of features, primarily delivered through its rich plugin ecosystem:

• Routing and Load Balancing: Sophisticated routing rules based on path, host, headers, and methods. Supports various load balancing algorithms (round-robin, least connections, etc.) across multiple upstream targets. Includes active and passive health checks for robust service discovery and reliability.
• Authentication and Authorization: A wide range of authentication plugins including Key Auth, Basic Auth, JWT, OAuth 2.0 introspection, OpenID Connect, LDAP, and custom authentication mechanisms. ACLs (Access Control Lists) for fine-grained authorization.
• Traffic Control: Rate Limiting to prevent abuse and protect services, circuit breakers to prevent cascading failures, and transformations (header manipulation, body rewriting) for protocol adaptation.
• Observability: Comprehensive logging plugins for various log aggregation services (Splunk, Syslog, Datadog, ELK stack). Prometheus plugin for exposing metrics. OpenTracing integration for distributed tracing.
• Security: CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing) management, IP Restriction, Bot Detection, and WAF (Web Application Firewall) capabilities through commercial plugins.
• Extensibility (Plugins): The ability to extend Kong's functionality with custom logic written in Lua, or through external languages (Go, Python, JavaScript, Java) via the Kong Plugin Development Kit (PDK). This makes Kong highly adaptable to specific needs without modifying its core.
• Developer Portal: Kong Enterprise offers a powerful Developer Portal to streamline API discovery, documentation, and consumption for external and internal developers.
• Service Mesh Integration: Can be deployed alongside service meshes like Istio, acting as an ingress gateway for north-south traffic, while the service mesh handles east-west traffic.

Advantages of Kong API Gateway

Adopting Kong as your API Gateway solution brings several compelling benefits:

• Feature-Rich Out-of-the-Box: Kong provides a vast collection of pre-built functionalities and plugins, addressing almost every common API management requirement. This significantly reduces the need for custom development.
• Rapid Development and Deployment: With its declarative configuration and extensive plugin library, developers can quickly set up routes, apply policies, and expose APIs, accelerating time-to-market for new services.
• Scalability and Reliability: Built on Nginx and designed for cloud-native environments, Kong is inherently scalable and highly available. It can handle massive traffic volumes and is resilient to failures through clustering and intelligent load balancing.
• Strong Community and Commercial Support: Being open-source, Kong benefits from a large and active community that contributes to its development and offers support. Kong Inc. provides professional support, training, and enterprise-grade features, making it a safe choice for critical production environments.
• Extensible through Plugins: While not as granular as building from scratch, Kong's plugin architecture offers a high degree of extensibility. If a specific feature isn't available, it can often be implemented as a custom plugin in Lua or other languages.
• Reduced Operational Complexity: For common API management tasks, Kong abstracts away much of the underlying complexity, allowing operations teams to manage APIs through a user-friendly Admin API or GUI rather than dealing with low-level network configurations.

Disadvantages of Kong API Gateway

Despite its strengths, Kong also has certain limitations and considerations:

• Learning Curve for Complex Configurations: While basic setup is straightforward, mastering Kong's advanced features, complex routing scenarios, and custom plugin development can involve a significant learning curve.
• Resource Footprint: Compared to a highly optimized, minimalist Go-based gateway, Kong might have a slightly larger resource footprint due to its comprehensive feature set and reliance on Nginx and LuaJIT.
• Database Dependency: Traditional Kong deployments require a database (PostgreSQL or Cassandra) for configuration storage, which adds another component to manage and ensure high availability for. While DB-less mode exists, it has its own operational considerations.
• Potential Vendor Lock-in (Enterprise Features): While the core is open-source, many advanced features, such as the Developer Portal, specific security plugins, and professional support, are part of Kong Enterprise, potentially leading to vendor lock-in for organizations that rely heavily on these commercial offerings.
• Flexibility within Plugin Architecture: While extensible, the flexibility is confined within the plugin architecture. Truly radical, fundamental changes to how the gateway operates might still necessitate a custom-built solution.

Ideal Use Cases for Kong API Gateway

Kong is an excellent choice for organizations that:

• Adopt Microservices Architectures: Provides a centralized management layer for numerous microservices, simplifying communication and governance.
• Need Rapid API Deployment: Accelerates the exposure of new APIs with pre-built features and declarative configurations.
• Operate in Hybrid or Multi-Cloud Environments: Offers consistent API management capabilities across diverse infrastructure.
• Are Large Enterprises: Provides enterprise-grade features, scalability, and support for managing a complex API ecosystem.
• Prioritize Breadth of Features and Ecosystem: Value a comprehensive set of API management functionalities without the need for extensive custom development.

In summary, Kong is a powerful, mature, and widely adopted API Gateway solution that strikes a balance between ease of use, feature richness, and high performance. It's ideal for organizations looking for a robust, production-ready solution that can scale with their API growth.

The "Urfav" Approach: Custom-Built Solutions and the Build vs. Buy Decision

The concept of "Urfav" in this context refers to "Your Favorite" or "Your Custom-Built" solution, often driven by highly specific needs or a desire for ultimate architectural control. While Golang is an excellent language for building such custom API Gateways, the "Urfav" category extends to the broader strategic decision of designing and implementing an API Gateway using any general-purpose programming language (e.g., Java with Spring Cloud Gateway, Node.js with Express, Python with FastAPI) or even a combination of tools. This approach is fundamentally about making the strategic decision to build rather than buy or adopt an existing platform.

Motivation for Custom-Built Gateways

Organizations opt for custom-built API Gateways for a variety of compelling reasons, often when off-the-shelf solutions, even highly configurable ones like Kong, don't perfectly align with their unique requirements.

• Unique Business Logic and Domain Specificity: Sometimes, an API Gateway needs to embody very specific, complex business logic that is deeply intertwined with the organization's core domain. This could involve highly specialized routing algorithms, intricate data transformations, or unique security protocols that are not generic enough to be provided by standard products.
• Deep Integration with Existing Internal Systems: Large enterprises often have a heterogeneous landscape of legacy systems, proprietary middleware, and bespoke communication protocols. A custom gateway can be engineered to act as a sophisticated façade, translating requests and responses to seamlessly integrate these disparate systems, something that packaged solutions might struggle with without extensive custom plugin development.
• Extreme Performance or Resource Constraints: While Kong is performant, a custom-built solution, especially one optimized with a language like Golang, can be meticulously tuned for specific workloads, achieving marginal gains in latency or throughput that are critical for certain applications (e.g., high-frequency trading, real-time gaming). Conversely, in highly resource-constrained environments, a custom, minimal gateway can be far more efficient.
• Intellectual Property and Strategic Advantage: For some companies, the API Gateway itself might be considered a strategic asset or a core part of their product offering. Building it in-house allows them to fully own the intellectual property, integrate proprietary algorithms, and gain a competitive edge by offering unique API management capabilities.
• Avoidance of Vendor Lock-in and Licensing Costs: While open-source options like Kong exist, relying on a commercial product or even a heavily community-driven one can introduce dependencies. A custom build offers complete autonomy over the technology stack, potentially avoiding future licensing costs or changes in product direction.
• Security Customization: Organizations with extremely high-security requirements or those operating in highly regulated industries might prefer to build their gateway to have absolute control over every security aspect, implementing custom encryption, token validation, or threat detection mechanisms tailored to their specific risk profile.

Architectural Patterns for Custom Gateways

The architectural patterns for a custom API Gateway broadly mirror those discussed for Golang, but they are generalizable to other languages and frameworks. Common patterns include:

• Reverse Proxy with Middleware Chains: This is the most prevalent pattern. The gateway acts as a reverse proxy, forwarding requests to upstream services. A series of middleware functions (or filters/interceptors in other frameworks) are invoked sequentially to handle cross-cutting concerns like authentication, logging, rate limiting, and request transformation.
• Service Discovery Integration: The gateway integrates with a service discovery mechanism (e.g., Consul, Eureka, Kubernetes Service Discovery) to dynamically locate healthy instances of backend services, ensuring high availability and fault tolerance.
• API Composition: For complex APIs, the gateway might compose responses from multiple backend services, aggregating data before sending a single, unified response to the client. This offloads complexity from the client side.
• Asynchronous Processing: For long-running operations or event-driven architectures, the gateway might interact with message queues (e.g., Kafka, RabbitMQ) to handle requests asynchronously, providing an immediate response to the client while processing continues in the background.

The choice of programming language heavily influences the implementation details. For instance, in Java, Spring Cloud Gateway provides a declarative and programmatic way to build gateways with powerful filters, while in Node.js, Express.js middleware forms the backbone of a custom gateway.

Advantages of Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav")

The benefits of a custom-built gateway are significant for the right organization:

• Absolute Tailoring: The ability to craft a solution that precisely matches every technical and business requirement without compromise. This ensures optimal fit for niche scenarios.
• Maximized Performance for Specific Workloads: With careful engineering, a custom gateway can be optimized to deliver peak performance for the specific traffic patterns and types of requests it handles, potentially surpassing generic solutions.
• Full Ownership and Flexibility: Complete control over the entire codebase, technology stack, and future roadmap. This allows for deep integration with internal tools and practices, fostering a unique, competitive advantage.
• No Recurring Licensing Costs: While initial development is expensive, a custom solution avoids ongoing subscription fees associated with commercial API Gateway products.
• Deep Security Customization: Enhanced ability to implement highly specific security policies, integrate with proprietary security systems, and respond rapidly to emerging threats with tailored patches.

Disadvantages of Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav")

The "build-it-yourself" path is fraught with challenges and should not be undertaken lightly:

• High Initial Investment: Requires substantial upfront investment in terms of developer hours, specialized expertise, and infrastructure setup. This can be a major barrier for smaller teams or those with tight deadlines.
• Long-Term Maintenance and Evolution Burden: The organization becomes solely responsible for all maintenance, bug fixes, security updates, and feature enhancements. This ongoing operational cost is often underestimated and can divert significant resources from core product development.
• Risk of Feature Creep and Scope Bloat: Without strong project management and a clear vision, custom projects can suffer from feature creep, where the scope continuously expands, delaying delivery and increasing complexity.
• Potential for Security Vulnerabilities: Building a secure API Gateway is incredibly complex. A custom solution might inadvertently introduce security flaws if not meticulously designed, reviewed, and tested by security experts, posing significant risks.
• Slower Time-to-Market: The extensive development, testing, and hardening required means that deploying a custom gateway can take significantly longer than configuring an off-the-shelf solution.
• Dependency on Internal Expertise: The success and longevity of a custom gateway heavily rely on the availability and continuity of internal expertise. Loss of key personnel can severely impact the project.
• Lack of Out-of-the-Box Ecosystem: Features like developer portals, advanced analytics, or ready-made integrations with third-party monitoring tools typically need to be built or integrated manually, adding further development overhead.

Considerations for Choosing a Custom-Built Approach

Before embarking on building your "Urfav" API Gateway, consider:

• Team Expertise and Bandwidth: Does your team possess the necessary expertise in network programming, distributed systems, security, and the chosen programming language? Do they have the capacity to both build and maintain it long-term?
• Unique Requirements: Are your requirements truly unique and unserved by existing solutions, or can an off-the-shelf product be configured or extended to meet most of your needs?
• Long-Term Vision and Cost: What is the long-term strategic value of owning the gateway? How do the total cost of ownership (TCO) of building and maintaining compare to licensing and operating a commercial or open-source product over several years?
• Security Implications: Can your team ensure the custom gateway is as secure, if not more secure, than established commercial alternatives?

In conclusion, a custom-built API Gateway (the "Urfav" approach) is a strategic undertaking best reserved for situations where unique, mission-critical requirements cannot be met by existing solutions, and where the organization has the financial, technical, and human resources to commit to its long-term development and maintenance. It offers unparalleled control but demands significant investment and carries inherent risks.

APIPark is a high-performance AI gateway that allows you to securely access the most comprehensive LLM APIs globally on the APIPark platform, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral, Llama2, Google Gemini, and more.Try APIPark now! 👇👇👇

Comparative Analysis: Golang, Kong, and Custom-Built Solutions

Having explored each approach individually, it's now time for a direct comparative analysis. This section will consolidate the insights, highlighting the trade-offs across various critical dimensions, and will serve as a guide for making an informed decision. We will include a comprehensive table, followed by a detailed discussion of each comparative criterion.

Comprehensive Comparison Table

To facilitate a quick yet thorough understanding, here is a detailed comparison table summarizing the key aspects of Golang (as a custom-build platform), Kong (as a dedicated API Gateway), and the broader Custom-Built Solutions (the "Urfav" approach).

Feature / Criterion	Golang (Custom Build)	Kong API Gateway	Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav")
Primary Approach	Build from scratch using a high-performance language.	Adopt a dedicated, feature-rich platform.	Build from scratch, often with a general-purpose language (including Go, Java, Node.js, Python).
Performance & Scalability	Excellent, highly optimized for specific workloads; low memory footprint. Scales with careful engineering.	Excellent, built on Nginx, high throughput, robust for large-scale deployments.	Varies widely based on language, framework, and engineering quality; potential for high optimization.
Development Effort	Very High: Implement all features (routing, auth, rate limit, etc.).	Low to Moderate: Configuration-driven, extensive plugins.	Very High: Requires full feature implementation.
Time-to-Market	Long: Significant development and testing cycles.	Short: Quick setup, rich features accelerate deployment.	Long: Requires substantial development, testing, and hardening.
Flexibility & Customization	Absolute: Every aspect is controllable, tailor to exact needs.	High: Extensive plugin architecture, custom plugins possible.	Absolute: Complete control over logic, integrations, and stack.
Feature Set (Out-of-Box)	Minimal (starts barebones): Requires custom implementation for all.	Extensive: Routing, Auth, Rate Limit, ACLs, Caching, Transformations, Observability.	Minimal (starts barebones): All features must be built or integrated.
Operational Overhead	High: Full responsibility for maintenance, updates, security.	Moderate: Managed via Admin API/GUI, but requires platform upkeep.	High: Complete burden for maintenance, updates, security, and evolution.
Cost (TCO)	High initial dev cost, low/no licensing. High long-term maintenance.	Moderate initial setup, potential licensing for Enterprise. Lower operational dev cost.	High initial dev cost, low/no licensing. High long-term maintenance.
Ecosystem & Community	Language ecosystem (Go stdlib, frameworks). General Go community.	Strong Kong community, large plugin marketplace, commercial support.	Varies by chosen language/framework; general developer communities.
Security Features	Requires custom implementation of all security controls.	Comprehensive security plugins (Auth, ACLs, WAF, Bot Detection).	Requires robust custom implementation of all security measures.
Learning Curve	High: Requires deep expertise in network programming, Go.	Moderate to High: Understanding Kong's architecture, plugins, and Admin API.	High: Deep understanding of chosen tech stack, network programming, security.
AI Integration	Possible via custom code, but requires significant effort to manage models/prompts.	Possible via custom plugins or external services, not purpose-built for AI model management.	Possible via custom code, but complex to standardize and manage various AI models.
Best Suited For	Extreme performance, unique low-level control, strong Go team, niche product.	Microservices, rapid deployment, broad API management features, enterprise.	Truly unique business logic, deep legacy integration, strategic ownership, high resources.

Detailed Discussion of Comparative Criteria

Let's elaborate on each of these points to provide a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved.

1. Performance & Scalability

• Golang (Custom Build): When engineered correctly, a Go-based gateway can achieve exceptional performance. Its native compilation, efficient goroutines, and lightweight memory footprint allow for very low latency and high throughput. It can be meticulously optimized for specific workloads, making it potentially the fastest option for bespoke scenarios. Scalability is achieved by running multiple instances behind a load balancer, with each instance being highly efficient.
• Kong API Gateway: Kong is renowned for its high performance, largely due to its foundation on Nginx and the efficiency of LuaJIT. It's designed from the ground up to handle massive traffic volumes and is highly scalable, supporting clustered deployments. For most enterprise use cases, Kong's performance is more than adequate and often superior to what a typical in-house team could achieve with a custom solution without significant expert investment.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): The performance and scalability of a generalized custom solution vary widely. While Golang offers inherent advantages, a custom gateway built with Java (e.g., Spring Cloud Gateway) or Node.js might perform differently. The key factor here is the quality of engineering, the chosen language's runtime characteristics, and the underlying framework. It can be highly performant if optimized, but it's not guaranteed.

2. Development Effort & Time-to-Market

• Golang (Custom Build): The development effort is substantial. Every feature, from routing to authentication and rate limiting, must be designed, implemented, and thoroughly tested. This extends the time-to-market considerably, as a basic gateway could take months, and a feature-complete one much longer, even for experienced teams.
• Kong API Gateway: Kong significantly reduces development effort and accelerates time-to-market. Its declarative configuration and extensive plugin library mean that common API management functionalities can be enabled and configured in minutes or hours rather than weeks or months. This allows teams to focus on core business logic rather than infrastructure.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Similar to the Golang approach, this path demands a very high development effort. The more features required, the longer the development cycle. This often means that time-to-market for APIs exposed through such a gateway is inherently slower than with a ready-made platform.

3. Flexibility & Customization

• Golang (Custom Build): Offers absolute flexibility. There are no limits to what can be implemented or how. Every byte and every piece of logic can be controlled, allowing for unparalleled tailoring to unique requirements or deep integrations.
• Kong API Gateway: Provides a high degree of flexibility through its robust plugin architecture. Many common and even some niche requirements can be met with existing plugins or by developing custom plugins in Lua or other languages. However, fundamental changes to Kong's core operation are generally not possible without modifying its source code.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Like the Golang specific build, this offers ultimate customization. If your gateway needs to do something truly novel or integrate with a highly proprietary system, a custom build offers the freedom to implement exactly that.

4. Feature Set (Out-of-the-Box)

• Golang (Custom Build): Starts as a blank slate. Any desired feature must be explicitly built or integrated using external libraries. There are no out-of-the-box API management capabilities.
• Kong API Gateway: Comes with a rich set of pre-built features and an extensive marketplace of plugins covering authentication, authorization, traffic control, security, observability, and more. This breadth of functionality is a major advantage.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Like the Golang approach, a generalized custom gateway begins with minimal features. All common API management functionalities need to be engineered from the ground up or carefully selected and integrated from various libraries.

5. Operational Overhead & Maintenance

• Golang (Custom Build): The operational burden is high. The organization is fully responsible for all aspects: deployment, monitoring, scaling, patching, security updates, and bug fixes. This requires dedicated operations and development expertise.
• Kong API Gateway: While still requiring operational expertise, Kong streamlines many tasks through its Admin API and GUI. The burden is primarily on maintaining the Kong instances and their underlying database, rather than the core logic of each API management feature. There's also commercial support available to offload some of this.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Similar to Golang, the maintenance overhead is significant. The long-term costs of keeping the custom gateway secure, updated, and compatible with evolving backend services can easily exceed the initial development costs.

6. Cost (Total Cost of Ownership - TCO)

• Golang (Custom Build): High initial development costs due to extensive engineering effort. Licensing costs are minimal (Golang is open-source). Long-term maintenance and operations costs can also be high due to continuous development and specialized support needs.
• Kong API Gateway: Initial setup costs can be moderate. For open-source Kong, there are no licensing fees, but infrastructure and operational costs remain. Kong Enterprise has licensing fees but offers professional support, advanced features, and potentially lower long-term development costs due to reduced custom work. TCO depends on scale and feature needs.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Typically involve high initial development costs. While often avoiding direct software licensing fees, the ongoing expenses for maintenance, security patches, and feature development contribute to a high TCO, potentially making it more expensive than a commercial solution in the long run.

7. Ecosystem & Community Support

• Golang (Custom Build): Benefits from the broad and active Golang community and its rich standard library. However, specific API Gateway components need to be assembled from general-purpose libraries rather than a dedicated gateway ecosystem.
• Kong API Gateway: Boasts a thriving open-source community, extensive documentation, and a vast marketplace of plugins. Kong Inc. also provides commercial support, making it a well-supported option for enterprises.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): The ecosystem and community support are dependent on the chosen programming language and frameworks. While languages like Java or Node.js have huge communities, they are not specific to API Gateway concerns, meaning less direct support for gateway-specific challenges.

8. Security Features

• Golang (Custom Build): All security features (authentication, authorization, WAF, input validation, encryption) must be meticulously implemented from scratch. This demands deep security expertise to avoid vulnerabilities.
• Kong API Gateway: Offers a wide array of robust, battle-tested security plugins for authentication (JWT, OAuth), authorization (ACLs), IP restriction, bot detection, and even commercial WAF integrations. This significantly offloads the security burden from development teams.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Similar to the Go approach, requires comprehensive custom implementation of all security measures. The risk of introducing security vulnerabilities is higher if the development team lacks specialized security expertise.

9. Learning Curve

• Golang (Custom Build): High learning curve. Requires not just proficiency in Golang but also deep understanding of network protocols, distributed systems, and security engineering to build a robust API Gateway.
• Kong API Gateway: Moderate to high learning curve. Basic setup is easy, but understanding its plugin architecture, Admin API, and advanced configuration for complex scenarios can take time. However, it's generally easier than building from scratch.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): High learning curve. Regardless of the language, building a gateway demands deep knowledge of the chosen technology stack, network programming, and the intricacies of API management.

10. AI Integration

The rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence introduces a new dimension to API management. Traditional API Gateways are designed primarily for REST or GraphQL APIs, but managing AI models presents unique challenges.

• Golang (Custom Build): While technically possible to integrate AI models by building custom handlers in Go that call AI inference services, it requires significant effort. Standardizing invocation formats, managing different AI models, tracking costs, and encapsulating prompts into REST APIs would all need to be custom-engineered. This approach offers control but at the cost of immense complexity and development time.
• Kong API Gateway: Kong can route requests to AI inference services and apply standard API management policies (authentication, rate limiting). However, it is not purpose-built for AI model integration. Integrating specific AI features like prompt encapsulation, unified AI invocation formats, or model-specific cost tracking would require extensive custom plugin development, which may become cumbersome for a large number of models.
• Custom-Built Solutions ("Urfav"): Similar to the Go approach, a custom solution can integrate AI models through bespoke code. However, managing a diverse ecosystem of AI models, their versions, input/output formats, and prompt engineering efficiently across an enterprise quickly becomes a monumental task without a specialized platform.

This is where specialized platforms come into play, offering a third path for modern API management that transcends traditional gateway functionalities. For organizations deeply invested in AI, a dedicated solution can provide immense value.

This is precisely the gap that platforms like ApiPark are designed to fill. APIPark, as an open-source AI gateway and API management platform, directly addresses the complexities of AI integration. It offers quick integration of over 100+ AI models with unified management for authentication and cost tracking. Its unique feature of standardizing the request data format across all AI models ensures that changes in underlying AI models or prompts do not disrupt applications, dramatically simplifying AI usage and maintenance. Furthermore, APIPark allows users to quickly combine AI models with custom prompts to create new APIs, such as sentiment analysis or translation APIs, abstracting away the underlying AI complexities. Beyond AI, APIPark also provides end-to-end API lifecycle management, team service sharing, multi-tenancy, and robust security features like access approval, offering a comprehensive solution that marries traditional API Gateway capabilities with advanced AI management. Its performance, rivaling Nginx, with over 20,000 TPS on modest hardware, makes it a highly scalable option for both traditional and AI-driven workloads.

When to Choose Which Solution

The decision ultimately hinges on a careful evaluation of your specific requirements, technical capabilities, strategic priorities, and long-term vision. There is no one-size-fits-all answer; each approach excels in different contexts.

Choose Golang (for Custom-Built Gateway) When:

• Extreme Performance is Non-Negotiable: Your application demands the absolute lowest latency and highest throughput that cannot be achieved efficiently with off-the-shelf solutions without significant overhead. Examples include high-frequency trading platforms, real-time gaming backends, or critical national infrastructure.
• Ultimate Control and Low-Level Optimization are Critical: You need granular control over every aspect of the gateway's behavior, from network packet handling to custom caching strategies or highly specific security protocols that are not supported by existing products.
• You Have Strong In-House Golang Expertise: Your development team has deep experience in Golang, network programming, distributed systems, and security engineering, and has the capacity to build, maintain, and evolve a complex infrastructure component.
• The Gateway is a Core Product Component: The API Gateway itself is a strategic differentiator or a fundamental part of your unique product offering, justifying the significant investment in its custom development.
• Minimal Feature Set is Required Initially: You only need a very specific, limited set of gateway functionalities, making the overhead of a full-fledged platform undesirable.

Choose Kong API Gateway When:

• You Operate a Microservices Architecture: Kong provides a robust and centralized solution for managing hundreds or thousands of microservices, simplifying routing, authentication, and traffic management.
• Rapid API Development and Deployment are Priorities: You need to expose new APIs quickly with a comprehensive set of API management features (authentication, rate limiting, logging) without extensive custom coding.
• You Need a Feature-Rich, Battle-Tested Solution: Your requirements align with the broad range of features offered by Kong and its plugin ecosystem, and you prefer a production-ready, widely adopted platform.
• Scalability and Reliability are Key Concerns: You need a gateway that can handle high traffic volumes, provide high availability through clustered deployments, and offer enterprise-grade resilience.
• You Value Community Support and/or Commercial Backing: You appreciate the benefits of an active open-source community and/or require the professional support and advanced features offered by Kong Enterprise.
• You Need a Hybrid/Multi-Cloud Solution: Kong provides consistent API management capabilities across diverse deployment environments.

Choose Custom-Built Solutions (The "Urfav" Approach) When:

• Your Business Logic is Truly Unique and Unserved: You have highly specialized requirements for API logic, data transformation, or integration that no existing API Gateway can handle, even with extensive customization or plugins.
• Deep Integration with Proprietary/Legacy Systems is Required: The gateway needs to serve as a complex adapter for deeply integrating with legacy systems or proprietary protocols that are unique to your organization.
• Strategic Ownership and Control are Paramount: You have a strategic imperative to own the entire API Gateway stack, perhaps for competitive advantage, intellectual property, or to avoid any form of vendor dependency.
• You Have Significant Resources for Long-Term Investment: You understand and are prepared for the substantial upfront development costs and the ongoing, potentially higher, long-term maintenance burden.
• Security Requirements are Extremely Niche: Your security posture demands highly specific, custom-engineered security protocols or integrations that cannot be achieved with configurable products.

Consider APIPark When:

• AI Integration is a Core Component of Your Strategy: You are building applications that heavily leverage AI models and need a robust, unified platform to manage their APIs, standardize invocation, and encapsulate prompts efficiently.
• You Need Unified Management for AI and Traditional REST APIs: You want a single gateway solution that can handle both your conventional REST APIs and your rapidly growing portfolio of AI model APIs, ensuring consistent authentication, monitoring, and lifecycle management.
• Simplifying AI Invocation and Prompt Management is Crucial: You aim to abstract away the complexities of different AI model formats and prompt engineering, allowing developers to consume AI services through a standardized and easy-to-use API.
• You Seek Comprehensive API Lifecycle Management: Beyond just the gateway, you need end-to-end capabilities for API design, publication, versioning, team sharing, access approval workflows, and detailed analytics for both AI and REST APIs.
• You Value Open-Source Flexibility with Enterprise Capabilities: You appreciate the agility and transparency of an open-source solution (Apache 2.0) combined with powerful features and the option for commercial support for advanced enterprise needs.
• High Performance and Scalability for Modern Workloads are Essential: You need a gateway that can handle large-scale traffic for both traditional and AI-driven services with proven performance benchmarks.
• You Need Robust Observability for AI Services: Detailed logging of AI API calls and powerful data analysis tools for performance trends are critical for troubleshooting and proactive maintenance.

In essence, if your API strategy heavily leans into the future of AI-driven applications, ApiPark offers a compelling, specialized solution that bridges the gap between traditional API Gateways and the demands of AI API management. It provides a strategic advantage by simplifying complex AI integrations and unifying API governance under a single, high-performance platform.

Future Trends in API Gateways

The landscape of API Gateways is dynamic, continually evolving to meet new architectural paradigms and technological advancements. Understanding these trends is crucial for making a future-proof decision.

• AI-Powered API Management: Beyond just routing to AI services, future API Gateways will increasingly incorporate AI capabilities within the gateway itself. This includes AI for anomaly detection in traffic patterns, predictive scaling, intelligent routing based on service health and load, and automated API documentation generation. Platforms like APIPark are at the forefront of this trend, integrating AI models directly into the gateway's functionality.
• Closer Integration with Service Meshes: While API Gateways primarily handle "north-south" (external client to internal service) traffic, service meshes manage "east-west" (internal service to internal service) traffic. The trend is towards tighter integration, where the gateway acts as the ingress point, offloading sophisticated traffic management and policy enforcement to the service mesh for internal calls, creating a more cohesive and robust microservices architecture.
• Edge Computing and Serverless Integration: As compute moves closer to the data source and user, API Gateways are evolving to support edge deployments, minimizing latency. They are also becoming more adept at integrating with serverless functions (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure Functions), providing a unified entry point and applying policies to ephemeral, function-based services.
• GraphQL Gateways: With the increasing adoption of GraphQL for flexible data fetching, dedicated GraphQL gateways or hybrid gateways capable of handling both REST and GraphQL traffic are becoming more prevalent. These gateways perform schema stitching, query validation, and authorization for GraphQL APIs.
• Enhanced Security Features: The threat landscape is constantly evolving, driving API Gateways to incorporate more advanced security features. This includes integrated Web Application Firewalls (WAFs), advanced bot detection, API security testing (DAST/SAST integration), and sophisticated threat intelligence feeds to protect against zero-day exploits and sophisticated attacks.
• Open Standards and Interoperability: A move towards more open standards for API definition (OpenAPI/Swagger), tracing (OpenTelemetry), and policy enforcement (Open Policy Agent) is fostering greater interoperability between API Gateways, service meshes, and other infrastructure components, reducing vendor lock-in and simplifying management.
• Unified API Developer Portals: As APIs become products, robust developer portals are essential. Future portals will be more interactive, AI-enhanced for personalized recommendations, and deeply integrated with the gateway for self-service API key management, testing, and analytics.

These trends highlight a future where API Gateways are not just traffic routers but intelligent, highly secure, and deeply integrated platforms that are central to managing both traditional and emerging forms of digital services, particularly those powered by AI.

Conclusion

The selection of an API Gateway solution is a foundational architectural decision that resonates throughout an organization's software development and operational landscape. Whether you choose to build a custom gateway with Golang, adopt a battle-tested platform like Kong, or opt for a specialized solution such as APIPark, each path offers distinct advantages and trade-offs.

Building a custom gateway with Golang or any "Urfav" language provides ultimate control, tailored optimization, and freedom from vendor lock-in. It's a powerful choice for organizations with unique, extreme performance requirements, deep technical expertise, and a willingness to commit significant resources to long-term development and maintenance. However, this bespoke approach comes with a high initial investment, substantial operational overhead, and a slower time-to-market due to the need to implement virtually every feature from scratch.

Kong, on the other hand, embodies the power of adopting a dedicated API Gateway platform. It offers a rich, out-of-the-box feature set, rapid deployment capabilities, and robust scalability, built on the solid foundation of Nginx. Its extensive plugin ecosystem caters to a vast array of API management needs, making it an excellent choice for microservices architectures, enterprises seeking comprehensive features, and those prioritizing speed and a strong community or commercial support. While highly flexible, its customization is primarily within its plugin framework, and it carries its own operational considerations regarding database dependency and potential commercial vendor lock-in for advanced features.

The emerging demands of AI-driven applications introduce a new dimension to this decision. For organizations strategically investing in AI, a platform like ApiPark offers a compelling third way. By providing an open-source AI gateway and API management platform, APIPark uniquely addresses the complexities of integrating and managing AI models alongside traditional REST APIs. Its ability to quickly integrate 100+ AI models, standardize invocation formats, encapsulate prompts into REST APIs, and provide end-to-end API lifecycle management significantly simplifies AI adoption and ensures efficient, secure, and scalable API governance in the era of artificial intelligence. Its high performance and comprehensive observability features make it a strong contender for future-proofing your API infrastructure.

Ultimately, the best API Gateway is the one that most closely aligns with your business objectives, your team's existing skill set, your budget, and your long-term strategic vision. Carefully weigh the benefits of absolute control versus accelerated deployment, and the evolving needs of your API ecosystem, especially as AI continues to reshape the digital landscape. By considering these factors comprehensively, you can make an informed decision that empowers your organization to build, manage, and scale its APIs effectively for years to come.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Is Golang a direct alternative to Kong API Gateway?

No, Golang is not a direct alternative to Kong API Gateway. Golang is a programming language, whereas Kong is a complete, dedicated API Gateway product built using technologies like Nginx and Lua. Using Golang means you are choosing to build an API Gateway from scratch, implementing all the functionalities (routing, authentication, rate limiting, etc.) yourself. Kong, conversely, provides these functionalities out-of-the-box and through its plugin ecosystem, allowing you to adopt a ready-made solution. The choice between them is fundamentally a "build vs. buy" decision, with Golang offering ultimate control and Kong offering accelerated development with extensive pre-built features.

2. When should I absolutely avoid building a custom API gateway (the "Urfav" approach)?

You should generally avoid building a custom API Gateway if: 1. Your requirements are largely generic: Most of your needs (authentication, rate limiting, routing) are standard and well-covered by existing, feature-rich API Gateway products like Kong. 2. You lack specialized expertise: Your team does not possess deep expertise in network programming, distributed systems, security, and the chosen language for gateway development. 3. You have limited resources/time-to-market: Building a robust, production-grade gateway requires significant engineering effort and time, which might be better spent on core business logic. 4. You underestimate long-term maintenance: The ongoing burden of maintenance, security updates, and feature development for a custom solution can be substantial and easily outweigh initial cost savings. Unless you have truly unique, unserved business logic, extreme performance requirements, or a strategic imperative to own the entire stack, adopting a proven API Gateway platform is almost always the more pragmatic and cost-effective approach.

3. Can Kong API Gateway integrate with AI services?

Yes, Kong API Gateway can integrate with AI services, primarily by routing requests to your AI inference endpoints (e.g., a service hosting a machine learning model). It can apply its standard API management policies, such as authentication, authorization, and rate limiting, to these AI service APIs. However, Kong is not purpose-built for AI model-specific management tasks like standardizing diverse AI model invocation formats, encapsulating prompts into REST APIs, or providing specialized cost tracking for AI usage. While custom plugins could be developed for some of these needs, for comprehensive AI API governance, a platform specifically designed as an AI gateway might offer a more streamlined and efficient solution.

4. What makes APIPark different from other API gateways?

ApiPark differentiates itself by specifically focusing on being an "AI gateway" in addition to a comprehensive API management platform. While traditional API Gateways (like Kong) excel at managing REST/GraphQL APIs, APIPark is designed from the ground up to address the unique challenges of integrating and managing AI models. Key differentiators include: * Unified AI Model Integration: Quick integration of 100+ AI models with a standardized API format for invocation. * Prompt Encapsulation: Ability to combine AI models with custom prompts to create new, ready-to-use REST APIs. * AI-specific Management: Features like cost tracking for AI models and ensuring changes in AI models/prompts don't break applications. * End-to-End API Lifecycle for AI & REST: It offers comprehensive lifecycle management for both traditional REST and AI APIs, including design, publication, invocation, and decommissioning, along with robust security, performance, and observability features. This makes it ideal for organizations building AI-driven applications that need a unified API governance solution.

5. How does the total cost compare between these solutions?

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) varies significantly: * Golang (Custom Build) / "Urfav" Solutions: Typically have a high initial development cost due to the extensive engineering effort required to build every feature from scratch. While there are generally no direct software licensing fees, long-term maintenance, security updates, and feature development costs are also very high, often exceeding the initial investment. * Kong API Gateway: Offers a moderate initial setup cost. The open-source version has no licensing fees, but you incur infrastructure costs and operational expenses for maintaining the platform. Kong Enterprise has recurring licensing fees but provides advanced features, professional support, and potentially lower long-term development costs for specific features that are provided out-of-the-box, reducing the need for custom coding. * APIPark: As an open-source product (Apache 2.0), it has no direct licensing fees for its core functionalities, leading to a lower initial software acquisition cost. Deployment is quick and easy, further reducing initial setup effort. While infrastructure and operational costs for running APIPark exist, its efficiency and specialized features (especially for AI) can lead to long-term savings by simplifying AI integration and reducing the need for custom development in that area. Commercial support and advanced features are available for leading enterprises, impacting TCO based on specific needs.

In summary, custom builds have high development/maintenance costs, Kong offers a balance with potential licensing, and APIPark provides a cost-effective, specialized solution for AI-centric API management, especially with its open-source nature.

🚀You can securely and efficiently call the OpenAI API on APIPark in just two steps:

Step 1: Deploy the APIPark AI gateway in 5 minutes.

APIPark is developed based on Golang, offering strong product performance and low development and maintenance costs. You can deploy APIPark with a single command line.

curl -sSO https://download.apipark.com/install/quick-start.sh; bash quick-start.sh

In my experience, you can see the successful deployment interface within 5 to 10 minutes. Then, you can log in to APIPark using your account.

Step 2: Call the OpenAI API.