Kong
ToolJet
| Feature | Kong | ToolJet |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free / from $0.05/mo | Free / from $20/mo |
| Free Plan | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Best For | platform-engineers, microservices-teams, api-gateway-users, devops-teams | developers, startups, ops-teams, small-businesses |
| Founded | 2010 | 2021 |
| Api Gateway | ✓ | ✗ |
| Service Mesh | ✓ | ✗ |
| Load Balancing | ✓ | ✗ |
| Authentication | ✓ | ✗ |
| Rate Limiting | ✓ | ✗ |
| Plugins | ✓ | ✗ |
| Observability | ✓ | ✗ |
| Kubernetes Ingress | ✓ | ✗ |
| Visual Builder | ✗ | ✓ |
| Data Sources | ✗ | ✓ |
| Workflows | ✗ | ✓ |
| Custom Code | ✗ | ✓ |
| Version Control | ✗ | ✓ |
| Multi Tenancy | ✗ | ✓ |
✓ Kong Pros
- Open-source core with large plugin ecosystem
- Sub-millisecond latency for API requests
- Platform-agnostic deployment (cloud, on-prem, hybrid)
- Strong Kubernetes-native support
✗ Kong Cons
- Enterprise features require paid license
- Configuration complexity for advanced setups
- Documentation could be more beginner-friendly
✓ ToolJet Pros
- Open source
- Many data sources
- Drag-and-drop
- Self-hostable
✗ ToolJet Cons
- Documentation gaps
- Fewer widgets than competitors
- Community-dependent support
The Verdict
Kong is built for platform engineers and microservices teams, with a focus on api-gateway and service-mesh. ToolJet targets developers and startups and leads with visual-builder and data-sources.
On pricing, Kong is the clear winner for budget-conscious users — starting at $0.05/mo compared to $20/mo for ToolJet. That $19.95/mo difference adds up quickly for growing teams.
Both offer free plans, so you can test each with your real workflow before committing to a subscription.
Feature-wise, Kong offers broader built-in capabilities (8 features vs 6), while ToolJet takes a more focused approach — which can mean a simpler, faster onboarding experience.
This is a genuinely close comparison. If you can, sign up for both free trials (where available) and run a one-week test with your actual team tasks before deciding.