Softwr

APIs · head to head

Kong Gateway vs VerneMQ

Kong Gateway logo

Kong Gateway

APIs

Open-source and cloud API gateway for managing microservices traffic

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
VerneMQ logo

VerneMQ

Databases

Erlang MQTT broker whose source is Apache 2.0 but whose official binaries need a paid subscription

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Kong Gateway the free open-source gateway lacks the analytics, portals, and support of the paid Konnect tiers.; VerneMQ the official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • They diverge on capability: Kong Gateway covers API request routing, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Kong Gateway and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Kong Gateway and VerneMQ differ
AttributeKong GatewayVerneMQ
Pricing modelfreemiumquote
Platformsweb, linux, apiLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes
CategoryAPIsDatabases
Founded2017Unknown

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).

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 Kong Gateway

  • API request routing
  • Plugin ecosystem
  • Developer portals
  • AI Gateway
  • Analytics and observability
  • SSO and audit logs

Only in VerneMQ

  • Erlang/OTP clustering
  • MQTT 5.0 support
  • Plugin system
  • Backpressure handling
  • Bridge support
  • Metrics export
  • MQTT over WebSockets
  • Pluggable auth backends

What people use each for

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

Kong Gateway

  • Routing and securing traffic across microservicesnot VerneMQ
  • Publishing internal or external developer portalsnot VerneMQ
  • Managing rate limits and authentication at the API edgenot VerneMQ
  • Gateway-level routing to multiple LLM providersnot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

  • An industrial operator that wants an MQTT broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not usenot Kong Gateway
  • A team building from source to stay strictly under Apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglementnot Kong Gateway
  • A deployment needing custom authentication logic implemented as a plugin in Lua or over a webhooknot Kong Gateway
  • An organisation that wants a broker maintained by a small European company rather than by a vendor that keeps changing licencesnot Kong Gateway

Where each one falls short

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

Kong Gateway

  • The free open-source gateway lacks the analytics, portals, and support of the paid Konnect tiers.
  • Plus tier caps API requests at 1M/month before incurring per-million overage charges.
  • Enterprise pricing is custom and not published, making budgeting harder without sales contact.
  • Configuration and plugin management can require significant operational expertise to run at scale.

VerneMQ

  • The official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • Octavo Labs is a very small company, so support depth, response times and the bus factor on the codebase are materially thinner than at HiveMQ or EMQ.
  • There is no data integration or rule engine layer, so routing messages into a database means writing and operating your own consumer service.
  • Operating an Erlang cluster requires runtime knowledge that most teams do not have and will use for nothing else in their stack.
  • There is no vendor-managed cloud offering, so every deployment is self-operated with the infrastructure and on-call cost that implies.

Pricing, plan by plan

Kong Gateway

Free
  • Free TrialFree
    • 30-day enterprise functionality trial
    • Unlimited gateways
    • 30-day analytics retention
  • Plus$undefined/month
    • Up to 5 serverless, 2 hybrid, 2 dedicated cloud gateways
    • 1M API requests/month included
    • Up to 2 developer portals
  • Enterprise$undefined/month
    • Unlimited hybrid and dedicated cloud gateways
    • Unlimited developer portals
    • SSO and audit logs

VerneMQ

Free
  • Source buildFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed source from GitHub
    • Full clustering and plugin capability
    • You compile and package it yourself
  • Binary packages and Docker images$undefined/year
    • Covered by the VerneMQ EULA, not Apache 2.0
    • Yearly usage subscription expected for commercial use
    • Official builds and Docker images
  • Commercial support$undefined/year
    • Evaluation, customisation and operations assistance
    • Custom development
    • Long-term maintenance agreements

Which should you pick?

Choose Kong Gateway if

  • You need api request routing.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on web, linux, api.
  • You also want plugin ecosystem.
Kong Gateway review

Choose VerneMQ if

  • You need erlang/otp clustering.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
  • You also want mqtt 5.0 support.
VerneMQ review

Questions people ask

Is Kong Gateway or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Kong Gateway starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Kong Gateway or VerneMQ?
Kong Gateway starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does Kong Gateway or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Kong Gateway runs on web, linux, api. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use Kong Gateway for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Kong Gateway best used for?
Kong Gateway is most often used for routing and securing traffic across microservices, publishing internal or external developer portals, managing rate limits and authentication at the api edge, gateway-level routing to multiple llm providers. Of those, routing and securing traffic across microservices and publishing internal or external developer portals are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Kong Gateway do that VerneMQ cannot?
Kong Gateway covers API request routing, Plugin ecosystem, Developer portals, AI Gateway. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Kong Gateway: Is Kong Gateway free?

Kong's core gateway is open source and free to self-host. Kong Konnect, the managed cloud platform, offers a 30-day free trial before moving to paid Plus or custom Enterprise pricing.

Source
VerneMQ: Is VerneMQ free?

The source is Apache 2.0 and free. The official binary packages and Docker images are covered by a separate EULA that expects a yearly fee for commercial use.

Kong Gateway: How is usage metered on the Plus plan?

The Plus plan includes 1M API requests per month, with additional usage billed at $200 per extra 1 million requests up to a 10M/month cap, plus per-gateway and per-LLM-model charges.

Source
VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

Yes. Octavo Labs AG in Zurich continues to publish 2.x releases, most recently in 2026.

Kong Gateway: What support is included?

Plus includes email support with a 2-business-day SLA, while Enterprise adds dedicated success managers and professional services.

Source
VerneMQ: Does it have a managed cloud?

No. Every deployment is self-hosted, with commercial support available from Octavo Labs.

VerneMQ: How does it compare to EMQX?

Narrower in features and without a rule engine, but with a simpler licence story for source builds after EMQX moved to BSL.

Share

Related pages

More on Kong Gateway

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads