AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Developer platform › API gateways › Apache APISIX vs Apigee
API gateways · October 2026 Edition

Apache APISIX vs Apigee

Zero of fourteen models named Apache APISIX first on the direct prompt; one named Apigee. Apache APISIX was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Apigee by fourteen and Apache APISIX carries 26 labels and Apigee 43, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Apache APISIX

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

Apigee

criticized challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

First-choice share11%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate8%28%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels2643A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Apache APISIX reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Kong Gateway was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Kong Gateway vs Apache APISIX · Kong Gateway vs Apigee · Apache APISIX vs Amazon API Gateway

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the API gateways page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Apache APISIXFirst choices, of fourteen modelsApigee
Direct013 against Apigee
Paraphrase001 against Apache APISIX · 3 against Apigee
Comparative301 against Apigee
Budget-constrained601 against Apigee
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Apache APISIX · 4 against Apigee
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Apache APISIX and Apigee stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Apache APISIX Apigee first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apache APISIX on the left and Apigee on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Apache APISIX and Apigee stood in it.

Apigee first, Apache APISIX not the choice

1 of 14 modelsApache APISIX was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Qwen 3.7 FlashAmazon API Gateway, Apigee alternatives: Kong Gateway, Tyk

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
GPT-5.4 miniKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Azure API Management
Perplexity SonarKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Cleo Integration Cloud
Mistral SmallZuplo alternatives: Apigee, Axway API Gateway
GPT-6 LunaKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Azure API Management

Neither was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Amazon API Gateway, Kong Gateway
Gemini 3.5 FlashTyk alternatives: Gravitee, Kong Gateway, Zuplo
Grok 4.1 FastKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Tyk, Zuplo
DeepSeek V4 FlashKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Tyk, Zuplo
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Kimi K2Kong Gateway alternatives: Azure API Management
GLM 4.7 FlashXKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Tyk, Zuplo
MiniMax M2.5Kong Gateway alternatives: Azure API Management, NGINX, Red Hat 3scale
Muse Glimmer 30BKong Gateway, Tyk alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Apache APISIX leads by two points.
Apache APISIX2%#7 of 10
Apigee0%#10 of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Apache APISIX leads by nine points.
Apache APISIX11%#2 of 11
Apigee2%#8 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Apigee leads at enterprise.
Apigee38%#1 of 9
Apache APISIX0%#9 of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Apache APISIX

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Emerging, smaller community than Kong” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Similar misconfig exposure as Kong” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Use Kong (for its vast ecosystem) or Apache APISIX (if you want pure open-source with no relational DB requirements)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Apache APISIX and Traefik are currently the strongest recommendations for budget-conscious teams” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Go with Kong OSS or Apache APISIX - you get enterprise-grade features at zero license cost” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Apigee

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.

“What to Avoid for Mid-Size Budgets - Apigee (Google) — powerful but expensive; pay-as-you-go can reach $400K+/year” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.