AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Developer platform › API gateways › Zuplo vs Traefik Hub
API gateways · October 2026 Edition

Zuplo vs Traefik Hub

One of fourteen models named Zuplo first on the direct prompt; zero named Traefik Hub. Zuplo was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Traefik Hub by twelve and Zuplo carries 24 labels and Traefik Hub 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Zuplo

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

Traefik Hub

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share8%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels2421A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Zuplo 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 Zuplo · Kong Gateway vs Traefik Hub · Apache APISIX vs Zuplo

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.
ZuploFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTraefik Hub
Direct10
Paraphrase10
Comparative00
Budget-constrained21
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
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 Zuplo and Traefik Hub 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
Zuplo Traefik Hub first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Zuplo on the left and Traefik Hub on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Zuplo and Traefik Hub stood in it.

Zuplo first, Traefik Hub not the choice

1 of 14 modelsTraefik Hub was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallZuplo alternatives: Apigee, Axway API Gateway

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.
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
GLM 4.7 FlashXKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Tyk, Zuplo

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
GPT-5.4 miniKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Azure API Management
Perplexity SonarKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Cleo Integration Cloud
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashAmazon API Gateway, Apigee alternatives: Kong Gateway, Tyk
Kimi K2Kong Gateway alternatives: Azure API Management
MiniMax M2.5Kong Gateway alternatives: Azure API Management, NGINX, Red Hat 3scale
GPT-6 LunaKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Azure API Management
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
Zuplo leads by twenty-five points.
Zuplo27%#2 of 10
Traefik Hub2%#6 of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Zuplo leads by six points.
Zuplo8%#5 of 11
Traefik Hub2%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Zuplo leads by four points.
Zuplo4%#5 of 9
Traefik Hub0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Zuplo

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

“If you are running a modern SaaS stack and want to spend your engineering hours on building your B2B product rather than managing gateway servers, start with Zuplo.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about Traefik Hub

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

“If you want to save time and reduce complexity, choose Traefik.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Best if you are already in Kubernetes and want to keep the gateway lightweight and close to the cluster.” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · alternative
“great if your priority is Kubernetes-native ingress and simplicity, but it's usually not my first pick” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · alternative
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.