Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Envoy vs iDenfy

Envoy logo

Envoy

Developer Tools

A high-performance L7 proxy written in C++ that is configured by an API rather than a config file, and is usually deployed under a control plane.

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Visit EnvoyFull review
iDenfy logo

iDenfy

Cybersecurity

Identity verification and AML screening bundled into a single per-verification price

From
On request
Free plan
No
Visit iDenfyFull review

The short version

  • Envoy is free; iDenfy prices on request.
  • Only Envoy lists xDS dynamic configuration; only iDenfy lists document verification.
  • Prices and features on this page were last checked on 13 November 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Envoy and iDenfy actually diverge.

Attributes where Envoy and iDenfy differ
AttributeEnvoyiDenfy
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelOpen-sourcePer verification
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsWebWeb, iOS, Android, API
CategoryDeveloper ToolsCybersecurity

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Envoy

  • xDS dynamic configuration
  • Protocol breadth
  • Filter chain architecture
  • Observability by default
  • Outlier detection
  • Traffic shaping
  • mTLS termination and origination
  • Hot restart

Only in iDenfy

  • Document verification
  • Human review on all cases
  • AML screening
  • Business verification
  • Proof of address
  • NFC chip reading

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Envoy

  • Acting as the data plane under a service mesh or Gateway API implementation, which is how the overwhelming majority of deployments use itnot iDenfy
  • An edge or API gateway that needs per-route retry budgets, circuit breaking and outlier detection rather than round-robin proxyingnot iDenfy
  • Migrating traffic between service versions or between a monolith and its replacement, using weighted splits and shadow trafficnot iDenfy
  • Standardising observability across a polyglot estate, so that latency, error rates and tracing look the same regardless of the language a service is written innot iDenfy

iDenfy

  • A European fintech that needs KYC and AML screening and wants one price rather than four line itemsnot Envoy
  • A gambling operator in a regulated EU market needing age and identity assurance with EU data processingnot Envoy
  • A crypto platform with modest volume that cannot meet the minimum commitments larger vendors requirenot Envoy
  • A marketplace wanting NFC passport chip reading for higher assurance without an enterprise contractnot Envoy

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Envoy

  • The configuration surface is very large and hand-written bootstrap YAML runs to hundreds of lines for routing that Nginx expresses in twenty, which is why nearly every production deployment sits under a control plane and inherits that control plane's constraints as well
  • xDS is the real API and it is not stable in the comfortable sense; the v2 API set was removed outright, resource types continue to be deprecated, and your control plane and Envoy binaries have to be upgraded roughly in step or the proxies stop accepting configuration
  • Extending it properly means writing a C++ filter and building and maintaining your own Envoy binary; the alternatives are Lua, which adds per-request overhead, and proxy-wasm, whose ABI has remained effectively experimental for years with a real performance cost
  • At sidecar density the per-proxy memory and CPU footprint is a measurable share of cluster capacity, since thousands of workloads each carry a full proxy, and this is precisely the cost that has pushed mesh projects towards node-level or ambient architectures
  • There is no single vendor selling support for Envoy itself; you get the community plus control-plane vendors such as Solo.io and Tetrate, so an Envoy-level production bug is your own engineers in a C++ codebase unless a support contract happens to cover it
  • Diagnosing why a request got a particular response involves reading config dumps, the stats endpoint and the RESPONSE_FLAGS codes in access logs rather than a readable error, which is a specific skill you must hire or spend months growing

iDenfy

  • Rates are quoted rather than published on an accessible page, so despite the marketing emphasis on transparency you still need a sales conversation to get a number
  • It is a smaller vendor than the market leaders, which makes it a harder sell through enterprise vendor-risk review even when the product performs well
  • Human review on every case caps throughput in a way fully automated competitors are not constrained by, which shows up as latency during volume spikes
  • Coverage and accuracy are strongest on European documents; performance on some Asian, African and Latin American document types trails specialists in those regions
  • The bundled AML screening uses its chosen data sources, so institutions mandated to use a specific list provider such as Dow Jones cannot substitute it and end up paying twice

Pricing, plan by plan

Envoy

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the Envoy review.

iDenfy

On request
  • iDenfy VerificationOn request
    • Volume-tiered per-verification rates quoted on request
    • AML screening bundled rather than charged per check
    • No monthly minimum advertised

Which should you pick?

Choose Envoy if

  • You need xds dynamic configuration.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You also want protocol breadth.
Envoy review

Choose iDenfy if

  • You need document verification.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android, API.
  • You also want human review on all cases.
iDenfy review

Questions people ask

Is Envoy or iDenfy better?
Neither clearly leads. Envoy starts at Free and iDenfy at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Envoy or iDenfy?
Envoy has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Envoy and On request for iDenfy.
Does Envoy or iDenfy run on more platforms?
Envoy runs on Web. iDenfy runs on Web, iOS, Android, API.
Can I use Envoy for free?
Yes. Envoy has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. iDenfy starts at On request.
What is Envoy best used for?
Envoy is most often used for acting as the data plane under a service mesh or gateway api implementation, which is how the overwhelming majority of deployments use it, an edge or api gateway that needs per-route retry budgets, circuit breaking and outlier detection rather than round-robin proxying, migrating traffic between service versions or between a monolith and its replacement, using weighted splits and shadow traffic, standardising observability across a polyglot estate, so that latency, error rates and tracing look the same regardless of the language a service is written in. Of those, acting as the data plane under a service mesh or gateway api implementation, which is how the overwhelming majority of deployments use it and an edge or api gateway that needs per-route retry budgets, circuit breaking and outlier detection rather than round-robin proxying are not what iDenfy is typically brought in for.
What can Envoy do that iDenfy cannot?
Envoy covers xDS dynamic configuration, Protocol breadth, Filter chain architecture, Observability by default. iDenfy covers Document verification, Human review on all cases, AML screening, Business verification.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Envoy: Should I run Envoy on its own, or under a control plane?

Almost always under one. Directly authoring xDS or static bootstrap configuration is viable for a handful of routes and becomes unmanageable beyond that. Envoy Gateway, Istio, Contour, Gloo and Consul all exist to generate that configuration for you.

iDenfy: Is AML screening included in the verification price?

That is the pitch, screening bundled rather than sold as a per-check add-on. Confirm which sanctions and PEP data sources are behind it before you rely on it.

Envoy: How does it compare with Nginx or HAProxy?

Envoy is dynamically configured over an API and instrumented far more heavily; Nginx and HAProxy are faster to configure and lighter for straightforward reverse proxying. If you never need to change routing without a reload, Envoy is more machinery than the problem requires.

iDenfy: Is there a monthly minimum?

iDenfy markets itself as having no monthly minimum, in contrast to competitors charging $49 to $299 a month. Get that in writing in the contract.

Envoy: What does it cost?

Nothing to licence; it is Apache 2.0 and there is no paid edition. The cost is engineering time and, for most organisations, a commercial control plane or cloud service that packages it.

iDenfy: Where is data processed?

iDenfy is established in Lithuania and processes in the EU, which simplifies GDPR transfer assessments compared with United States-headquartered vendors.

Envoy: Can I write extensions without C++?

You can write Lua filters or proxy-wasm modules in Rust, Go, C++ or AssemblyScript. Both carry per-request overhead compared with a native filter, and the Wasm path has been slower to stabilise than the project originally projected.

Envoy: Is it a CNCF project?

Yes, it is a graduated CNCF project licensed under Apache 2.0, which means the trademark and governance sit with the foundation rather than with Lyft or any vendor.

Share

Related pages

More on Envoy

More on iDenfy

Keep looking

Other head to heads