Compare tools
Pick 2–5 published tools. Values come from our evidence-checked profiles — an em-dash means unknown, never “no”. Ranking rows reflect the current published methodology for the comparison context.
Kong AI Gateway vs Not Diamond
Context: LLM Gateways & Model Routing Platforms · 16 rows
| Attribute | Kong AI GatewayKong | Not DiamondNot Diamond |
|---|---|---|
| Identity · Taxonomy | ||
| Documentation | https://developer.konghq.com/ai-gateway/ | https://code.notdiamond.ai/docs |
| Tags | llm-gateway, api-gateway, kubernetes, mcp, microservices | model-routing, llm, coding-agents, ai |
| Platform · Deployment | ||
| Delivery model | SaaS, self-hosted | SaaS |
| Pricing · Licensing | ||
| License model | open-source | — |
| Pricing model | custom | custom |
| Source repository | https://github.com/Kong/kong | — |
| SPDX license IDs | Apache-2.0 | — |
| Features · Product · Fit | ||
| Core capabilities | Multi-LLM routing with provider failover, Semantic caching and load balancing, PII sanitization and semantic prompt guards, Token quotas, chargeback, and spend tracking, MCP server governance and authentication, L7 observability with logging and tracing | Per-request intelligent model selection, Routing across provider, model, domain, and reasoning complexity, Cost-savings targeting for agent workloads, Gateway-agnostic integration via API |
| Api · Integrations · Ecosystem | ||
| API available | true | true |
| Security · Privacy · Compliance | ||
| Security certifications | — | SOC 2, ISO 27001 |
| Audience · Use · Case | ||
| Best for | Organizations with existing API gateway or Kubernetes infrastructure that want LLM, MCP, and agent traffic governed through one gateway platform. | Engineering teams running coding agents that want per-request model selection to reduce spend while keeping their existing gateway or harness. |
| Company-size fit | SMB, mid-market, enterprise | mid-market, enterprise |
| Primary use cases | Governing LLM traffic in API infrastructure, MCP and agent-to-agent traffic governance, Provider switching and failover | Model routing for coding agents, LLM cost reduction, Avoiding vendor lock-in |
| Skill level | advanced | advanced |
| Lifecycle · Versioning | ||
| Maintenance status | active | active |
| Vendor · Maintainer | ||
| Vendor type | commercial | commercial |
“—” means unknown (we never treat missing evidence as a negative). Cells reflect each value's current evidence state; superseded or stale values are excluded. Ranking rows are editorial assessments under the cited methodology version — see the LLM Gateways & Model Routing Platforms category for definitions.