Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Envoy vs Transmit Security

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
Transmit Security logo

Transmit Security

Cybersecurity

Customer identity platform built around passwordless and fraud signals

From
On request
Free plan
No
Visit Transmit SecurityFull review

The short version

  • Envoy is free; Transmit Security prices on request.
  • Only Envoy lists xDS dynamic configuration; only Transmit Security lists passwordless authentication.
  • Where Transmit Security falls short: workforce identity is not the focus, so an organisation wanting one vendor for employees and customers will still run two platforms.
  • Prices and features on this page were last checked on 13 November 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Envoy and Transmit Security actually diverge.

Attributes where Envoy and Transmit Security differ
AttributeEnvoyTransmit Security
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 Transmit Security

  • Passwordless authentication
  • Detection and response
  • Identity verification
  • Orchestration
  • Account recovery
  • Bot and automation detection
  • Composable APIs

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

Transmit Security

  • A bank moving a consumer base off passwords to passkeys without losing customers at the migration stepnot Envoy
  • An insurer whose account recovery flow is the main account takeover route and needs risk scoring inside itnot Envoy
  • A retailer that wants bot detection at login rather than only at checkoutnot Envoy
  • An organisation replacing an in-house customer login system that has become an unfunded engineering liabilitynot 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

Transmit Security

  • Pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units
  • Migrating a live consumer identity base is a high risk project, and credential migration constraints mean some users must re-register, which shows up as measurable churn
  • The vendor is smaller than the identity incumbents, so the partner and systems integrator pool is thinner and staffing a large programme is harder
  • Workforce identity is not the focus, so an organisation wanting one vendor for employees and customers will still run two platforms
  • The fraud detection value depends on traffic volume feeding the models, so a smaller deployment gets less benefit from exactly the capability that justified choosing it over a plain identity provider

Pricing, plan by plan

Envoy

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the Envoy review.

Transmit Security

On request
  • Transmit Security PlatformOn request
    • Priced per monthly active user or per transaction by service
    • Services licensed individually or as a platform
    • Free developer tier for evaluation

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 Transmit Security if

  • You need passwordless authentication.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want detection and response.
Transmit Security review

Questions people ask

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

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.

Transmit Security: Do we have to replace our existing identity provider?

No. The services are composable, so detection and response or verification can be adopted alongside an existing provider such as Okta or Entra ID.

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.

Transmit Security: Is fraud detection an extra licence?

It is a separate service, but it is designed to run inside the authentication flow rather than as a bolted-on second vendor. Confirm which services are in your quote.

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.

Transmit Security: Is there a way to try it?

Yes, a free developer tier exists for evaluation, though production use is an enterprise agreement.

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 Transmit Security

Keep looking

Other head to heads