API Gateway Comparison 2026: Ocelot vs YARP vs Kong

Choosing an API gateway is not just a tooling decision.

It affects:

• how traffic enters your platform,
• where authentication and rate limiting are enforced,
• how much custom gateway logic your team owns,
• what observability you get at the edge,
• and how much operational weight the platform team carries over time.

That is why the right gateway depends less on marketing language and more on the shape of the system you are actually building.

A .NET team running a modest set of internal microservices often needs something different from a platform team operating a large multi-language environment with partner APIs, security plugins, and product-level governance. That is where the differences between Ocelot, YARP, and Kong become meaningful.

They all solve the gateway problem, but they do not solve it in the same way.

This guide compares Ocelot, YARP, and Kong in practical terms for 2026, including:

• architecture and design philosophy,
• routing and configuration,
• authentication and security,
• rate limiting and traffic controls,
• performance,
• extensibility,
• observability,
• and which type of team each gateway fits best.

Executive Summary

All three gateways can work well, but they fit different operating models.

Ocelot

Ocelot is usually the easiest choice for a .NET-centric team that wants:

• JSON-based routing,
• gateway basics without too much framework work,
• native .NET deployment,
• and a simpler learning curve than a broader gateway platform.

It is a good fit when the gateway is mostly:

• routing,
• auth enforcement,
• rate limiting,
• and lightweight service aggregation.

YARP

YARP is often the best choice when:

• performance matters,
• the team is already strong in ASP.NET Core,
• and the gateway needs to be programmable rather than mostly declarative.

It behaves more like a reverse proxy framework than a packaged gateway product, which is why strong teams often like it. It gives you a lot of control, but it expects you to build more of the surrounding gateway behavior yourself.

Kong

Kong is the strongest fit when:

• the platform is not only .NET,
• enterprise features matter,
• plugin-based policy management is attractive,
• or the company wants a broader API platform rather than only a reverse proxy.

Kong is often the most capable at the platform level, but also the heaviest in setup, operations, and conceptual scope.

The practical summary is:

• choose Ocelot for straightforward .NET gateway needs
• choose YARP for programmable, high-performance .NET proxy architecture
• choose Kong for enterprise-scale, multi-platform API gateway and policy control

What an API Gateway Actually Does

Before comparing tools, it helps to be clear about the job.

An API gateway typically sits between clients and backend services and handles concerns such as:

• request routing
• load balancing
• authentication and authorization
• rate limiting
• observability
• request and response transformation
• caching
• edge policy enforcement

That is why teams use a gateway in the first place.

The gateway gives you:

• one entry point,
• centralized cross-cutting controls,
• and less repeated infrastructure logic in every service.

The downside is that the gateway itself becomes a critical part of the platform. If it is hard to extend, hard to monitor, or hard to scale, it can become a bottleneck both technically and organizationally.

Why Teams Use a Gateway

A gateway is valuable because it helps centralize patterns that otherwise get duplicated across services.

Simplified Client Access

Clients do not need to know:

• which service lives where,
• how many internal services exist,
• or how internal routes are organized.

Centralized Security

Authentication, rate limiting, and policy enforcement can happen in one place before traffic reaches backend services.

Traffic Management

Gateways make it easier to apply:

• retries,
• load balancing,
• health-aware routing,
• and traffic shaping.

Platform Consistency

Versioning, headers, transforms, and response conventions become easier to manage when the edge has one control plane.

But not every team needs the same amount of gateway functionality, and that is exactly why Ocelot, YARP, and Kong feel different in practice.

Ocelot: .NET-Centric and Configuration-Driven

Ocelot is designed specifically for .NET workloads and is often one of the first gateways .NET teams evaluate.

It is attractive because it feels familiar and approachable.

What Ocelot Does Well

Ocelot is strongest when you want:

• a simple .NET-native gateway,
• route configuration in JSON,
• common gateway features available quickly,
• and reasonable support for auth, rate limits, and service discovery without building everything from scratch.

Core Strengths

• .NET-native
• JSON configuration
• route-based auth rules
• service discovery integration
• built-in rate limiting
• load balancing support
• middleware extensibility

Basic Ocelot Setup

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add Ocelot
builder.Services.AddOcelot()
    .AddConsul()
    .AddCacheManager(x => x.WithDictionaryHandle());

var app = builder.Build();

// Use Ocelot
app.UseOcelot().Wait();

app.Run();

{
  "Routes": [
    {
      "DownstreamPathTemplate": "/api/users/{id}",
      "DownstreamScheme": "https",
      "DownstreamHostAndPorts": [
        {
          "Host": "user-service",
          "Port": 80
        }
      ],
      "UpstreamPathTemplate": "/users/{id}",
      "UpstreamHttpMethod": ["GET"],
      "AuthenticationOptions": {
        "AuthenticationProviderKey": "Bearer",
        "AllowedScopes": ["user.read"]
      },
      "RateLimitOptions": {
        "ClientWhitelist": [],
        "EnableRateLimiting": true,
        "Period": "1m",
        "PeriodTimespan": 60,
        "Limit": 100
      }
    }
  ]
}

This is a good example of why Ocelot appeals to smaller platform teams. You can express a lot of gateway behavior declaratively.

Where Ocelot Fits Best

Ocelot usually works best when:

• the environment is mostly .NET,
• the gateway logic is not deeply custom,
• the team wants something easier to reason about quickly,
• and the platform does not need broad API product features.

Ocelot Trade-Offs

The limits usually show up when:

• requirements become very custom,
• the route configuration grows large and harder to maintain,
• observability needs become more advanced,
• or the team wants the gateway to behave like a full platform layer rather than a route-and-policy layer.

Ocelot is practical, but it is not usually the first tool you choose for a very large enterprise API platform.

YARP: Reverse Proxy as a Framework

YARP is Microsoft's reverse proxy framework built on modern ASP.NET Core.

It is often the most interesting choice for teams that want performance and control.

YARP is not just “another gateway config file.” It is a programmable proxy layer.

That distinction matters a lot.

What YARP Does Well

YARP is strongest when you want:

• high throughput,
• low overhead,
• deep ASP.NET Core integration,
• programmatic control over routes and clusters,
• custom transforms,
• and a gateway that behaves like application code rather than mostly static configuration.

Basic YARP Setup

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add YARP
builder.Services.AddReverseProxy()
    .LoadFromConfig(builder.Configuration.GetSection("ReverseProxy"));

var app = builder.Build();

// Use YARP
app.MapReverseProxy();

app.Run();

{
  "ReverseProxy": {
    "Routes": {
      "user-route": {
        "ClusterId": "user-cluster",
        "Match": {
          "Path": "/users/{**catch-all}"
        }
      }
    },
    "Clusters": {
      "user-cluster": {
        "Destinations": {
          "user-service": {
            "Address": "https://user-service:80/"
          }
        },
        "LoadBalancingPolicy": "RoundRobin"
      }
    }
  }
}

Advanced YARP Configuration

public class CustomProxyConfigProvider : IProxyConfigProvider
{
    public IProxyConfig GetConfig()
    {
        var routes = new[]
        {
            new RouteConfig
            {
                RouteId = "user-route",
                ClusterId = "user-cluster",
                Match = new RouteMatch
                {
                    Path = "/users/{**catch-all}"
                },
                Transforms = new[]
                {
                    new Dictionary<string, string>
                    {
                        ["PathPattern"] = "/api/users/{**catch-all}"
                    }
                }
            }
        };

        var clusters = new[]
        {
            new ClusterConfig
            {
                ClusterId = "user-cluster",
                LoadBalancingPolicy = "RoundRobin",
                Destinations = new Dictionary<string, DestinationConfig>
                {
                    ["user-service-1"] = new DestinationConfig
                    {
                        Address = "https://user-service-1:80/"
                    },
                    ["user-service-2"] = new DestinationConfig
                    {
                        Address = "https://user-service-2:80/"
                    }
                }
            }
        };

        return new ProxyConfig(routes, clusters);
    }
}

This shows the real appeal of YARP: it is easy to keep the gateway inside the normal ASP.NET Core programming model.

Where YARP Fits Best

YARP is usually the strongest fit when:

• the team already writes serious ASP.NET Core infrastructure,
• the gateway needs custom transforms or runtime configuration behavior,
• performance is important,
• and the team is comfortable owning more of the gateway logic directly.

YARP Trade-Offs

YARP does not try to be a full-blown enterprise API management platform out of the box.

That means:

• some features are yours to implement,
• more gateway behavior may live in code,
• and there is less “platform packaging” than in something like Kong.

For many strong engineering teams, that is a feature. For teams that want a more packaged solution, it may feel like extra work.

Kong: Broad Platform and Plugin-Driven Gateway

Kong is often the most mature and platform-oriented option in this comparison.

It is attractive when the company needs more than only a reverse proxy. Kong often becomes part of a broader API platform strategy.

What Kong Does Well

Kong is strongest when you want:

• plugin-based policy enforcement,
• mature gateway features,
• strong support outside the .NET ecosystem,
• enterprise controls,
• multi-protocol support,
• and a richer API platform layer.

Kong Example

_format_version: "3.0"

services:
  - name: user-service
    url: https://user-service:80/
    routes:
      - name: user-route
        paths:
          - /users
        methods:
          - GET
          - POST
        plugins:
          - name: rate-limiting
            config:
              minute: 100
              hour: 1000
          - name: jwt
            config:
              secret_is_base64: false
              key_claim_name: iss
              claims_to_verify:
                - exp
                - iss

This makes the Kong philosophy clear:

• model services and routes declaratively,
• then attach policy via plugins.

Kong Strengths

• mature ecosystem
• strong documentation
• plugin library
• enterprise features
• multi-platform fit
• broader API governance story
• better fit for non-.NET environments or mixed stacks

Kong Trade-Offs

Kong is more operationally involved than Ocelot or YARP for many .NET teams.

That can mean:

• more infrastructure,
• steeper learning curve,
• more resource usage,
• and broader platform surface area than some teams need.

Kong often makes sense when the organization truly needs a gateway platform, not just a reverse proxy with auth.

Feature Comparison

Core Feature Matrix

This table is useful, but the more important question is how these features are delivered.

Declarative vs Programmable vs Platform-Oriented

• Ocelot is more declarative and approachable
• YARP is more programmable and code-centric
• Kong is more platform-oriented and policy-driven

That architectural difference matters more than any single checkbox.

Performance Comparison

Performance matters, but it should not be the only decision factor.

Still, it matters enough to discuss clearly.

Typical Performance Pattern

Practical Reading of the Numbers

YARP is often the performance leader for .NET-heavy teams because:

• it is lightweight,
• it sits directly inside ASP.NET Core,
• and it avoids some of the broader platform overhead of a heavier gateway product.

Ocelot is typically fast enough for many common gateway use cases, but it is not usually chosen for extreme performance first.

Kong performs well, but its richer platform feature set and broader operational footprint often mean it carries more overhead than a lean .NET-native proxy.

Performance Is Not Just Raw Speed

You should also think about:

• how much custom logic the gateway will run,
• how often configs change,
• how much auth work happens at the edge,
• and how much observability or policy enforcement is layered in.

A fast gateway with a poor operational fit is still the wrong choice.

Authentication and Security Fit

Authentication patterns matter a lot in gateway selection because the gateway often becomes the first enforcement layer.

Ocelot

Ocelot supports:

• JWT
• OAuth2-style validation
• route-based auth settings
• basic scope rules

This is usually enough for many .NET microservice teams.

YARP

YARP inherits the strength of ASP.NET Core's authentication system.

That is a major advantage for teams that already know:

• middleware order,
• auth handlers,
• claims transformation,
• and policy-based authorization.

YARP does not “hide” auth. It lets you build it naturally with the ASP.NET Core stack.

Kong

Kong's plugin model is attractive when you want:

• auth as attachable policy,
• broader control surfaces,
• and support across many service stacks and protocols.

This often works well for:

• larger enterprises,
• multi-team environments,
• and API platform teams.

Operational Complexity

This is where many gateway decisions are actually made, even if people pretend it is all about features.

Ocelot Complexity

Ocelot is often the easiest to get started with for .NET teams. The operational complexity is usually modest until route sprawl or custom needs start growing.

YARP Complexity

YARP is simple if your team is comfortable building gateway behavior in code. It becomes harder only if the team wants lots of packaged gateway behavior without writing it.

Kong Complexity

Kong has the highest operational complexity in this comparison for many .NET shops, but it also offers the most platform depth.

That trade-off is acceptable when the organization actually needs:

• enterprise controls,
• multi-language environment support,
• or plugin-driven gateway governance.

It is less attractive when the team just needs a fast, clear .NET gateway.

Use Case Recommendations

Choose Ocelot When

Choose Ocelot when:

• your team is strongly .NET-focused,
• you want a quick path to a working gateway,
• declarative config is attractive,
• and the system does not need a huge platform layer.

It is a good choice for:

• internal microservices
• medium-scale gateways
• simpler auth, routing, and rate-limiting needs

Choose YARP When

Choose YARP when:

• performance matters,
• your team is strong in ASP.NET Core,
• you want custom transforms or custom gateway logic,
• and you prefer code-level control over a more packaged gateway model.

It is a strong fit for:

• modern .NET platforms
• internal platform teams
• high-throughput services
• advanced custom proxy behavior

Choose Kong When

Choose Kong when:

• the company is not only .NET,
• API policy is part of a broader platform strategy,
• plugins and enterprise controls matter,
• or you need a more mature multi-platform gateway platform.

It is a strong fit for:

• enterprise API programs
• multi-language service environments
• partner-facing API ecosystems
• teams that want broader governance tooling

Migration Considerations

Sometimes the question is not only which gateway to start with, but how hard it is to move later.

Ocelot to YARP

This is a common migration direction when a .NET team:

• started with a simpler gateway,
• then outgrew configuration-first limitations,
• and wants deeper programmability or better performance.

YARP to Kong

This often happens when:

• the gateway becomes more central to the organization,
• API governance expands,
• or the platform becomes less purely .NET.

Migration Advice

The safest migration approach is usually:

• keep route semantics clear,
• keep auth and policy logic documented,
• minimize hidden per-route custom behavior,
• and avoid letting gateway rules sprawl without ownership.

Gateway migration becomes painful when policy logic exists everywhere but nowhere clearly.

Monitoring and Observability

A gateway is one of the best places to observe the platform edge.

That makes observability a major decision factor.

What to Track

Useful gateway metrics include:

• request volume
• latency by route
• auth failures
• rate-limit violations
• backend failure rates
• retry counts
• health-check results
• downstream timeouts

Logging Matters

Structured logs should include:

• route ID
• client identity where appropriate
• request ID
• status code
• duration
• upstream and downstream targets
• auth result
• rate-limit or policy result

The more central the gateway becomes, the more valuable this data becomes for:

• debugging,
• incident response,
• and abuse detection.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Teams often make the same mistakes when choosing or deploying an API gateway:

• choosing only by benchmark charts
• underestimating operational complexity
• putting too much business logic into the gateway
• selecting a platform that does not match team skill level
• neglecting observability at the edge
• assuming a gateway replaces good service-level authorization
• and letting configuration sprawl without ownership

These mistakes matter more than whether one gateway is a few milliseconds faster than another.

Practical Selection Checklist

Before choosing, ask:

• Is the environment mostly .NET or mixed?
• Does the team prefer configuration or code?
• How much custom gateway behavior is likely?
• How important is performance at very high throughput?
• Do we need enterprise or API product features?
• How much operational complexity can we support?
• Are plugin ecosystems or developer portals part of the roadmap?
• How much of authentication and policy will live at the gateway?

These questions usually point more clearly to the right answer than raw feature matrices do.

Conclusion

Ocelot, YARP, and Kong are all capable API gateways, but they are built around different assumptions.

Ocelot is usually the most natural fit for simpler .NET-centric gateway needs. YARP is often the strongest choice for teams that want a high-performance, programmable .NET reverse proxy. Kong is the strongest fit when the gateway becomes part of a larger API platform with enterprise policy and multi-platform requirements.

That means the best choice is not the one with the biggest feature list.

It is the one that matches:

• your architecture,
• your team’s strengths,
• your operational maturity,
• and the kind of platform you are actually trying to build.

For many teams, the most important question is not: “Which gateway is best?”

It is: “Which gateway will we operate well six months from now?”