Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Envoy vs Resolver

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
Resolver logo

Resolver

Cybersecurity

Risk, incident and investigations platform for corporate security and operational risk teams, owned by Kroll

From
On request
Free plan
No
Visit ResolverFull review

The short version

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

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Envoy and Resolver actually diverge.

Attributes where Envoy and Resolver differ
AttributeEnvoyResolver
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelOpen-sourceQuote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsWebWeb, iOS, Android
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 Resolver

  • Incident management
  • Investigations
  • Enterprise risk management
  • Internal audit
  • Compliance and obligations
  • Business continuity
  • Risk Event Management
  • Configurable dashboards

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 Resolver
  • An edge or API gateway that needs per-route retry budgets, circuit breaking and outlier detection rather than round-robin proxyingnot Resolver
  • Migrating traffic between service versions or between a monolith and its replacement, using weighted splits and shadow trafficnot Resolver
  • 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 Resolver

Resolver

  • A national retailer consolidating store incident reporting, loss prevention cases and investigations into one system with defensible evidence handlingnot Envoy
  • A bank that needs operational risk events captured against a risk and control register rather than in spreadsheets and emailnot Envoy
  • A university security operations centre running dispatch, case management and clery-style reporting from a single recordnot Envoy
  • An organisation that already retains Kroll for investigations and wants case intake and vendor handoff in the same platformnot 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

Resolver

  • Kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation
  • Configuration flexibility comes at the cost of implementation time, with deployments commonly running several months and typically requiring vendor or partner services, so the first-year cost is well above the annual licence
  • Module-based pricing means the platform gets expensive quickly once you add audit, compliance and continuity to a security-led purchase, and modules bought later rarely carry the discount of the original deal
  • The IT and cyber compliance side is thinner than dedicated tools, so organisations chasing SOC 2 or ISO 27001 evidence automation will find it does not replace a Drata or Vanta
  • Reporting is capable but the drag and drop builder has a real learning curve, and organisations that do not train an internal administrator end up raising support tickets for changes that should be self-service

Pricing, plan by plan

Envoy

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the Envoy review.

Resolver

On request
  • Resolver CoreOn request
    • Priced by modules selected and number of users
    • Annual or multi-year enterprise agreement
    • Implementation and configuration quoted separately

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 Resolver if

  • You need incident management.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want investigations.
Resolver review

Questions people ask

Is Envoy or Resolver better?
Neither clearly leads. Envoy starts at Free and Resolver at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Envoy or Resolver?
Envoy has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Envoy and On request for Resolver.
Does Envoy or Resolver run on more platforms?
Envoy runs on Web. Resolver runs on Web, iOS, Android.
Can I use Envoy for free?
Yes. Envoy has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Resolver 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 Resolver is typically brought in for.
What can Envoy do that Resolver cannot?
Envoy covers xDS dynamic configuration, Protocol breadth, Filter chain architecture, Observability by default. Resolver covers Incident management, Investigations, Enterprise risk management, Internal audit.

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.

Resolver: Who owns Resolver?

Kroll, which acquired it in 2022. It is marketed as a Kroll business and sold alongside Kroll risk and investigations services.

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.

Resolver: What does Resolver cost?

Pricing is not published. It is quoted by module and user count on an annual or multi-year enterprise agreement, with implementation charged separately.

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.

Resolver: Is Resolver a SOC 2 compliance tool?

No. It is a risk, incident and investigations platform. Automated evidence collection for security certifications is not its strength.

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.

Resolver: How long does implementation take?

Months rather than weeks for a multi-module deployment, and most customers use vendor or partner services to configure it.

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 Resolver

Keep looking

Other head to heads