Kong Gateway WAF vs LiteSpeed Web Server WAF

Both Kong Gateway WAF and LiteSpeed Web Server WAF are capable WAF solutions. The right choice depends on your specific infrastructure, budget, and feature requirements.

View Kong Gateway WAF Review View LiteSpeed Web Server WAF Review

Overview

Kong Gateway WAF and LiteSpeed Web Server WAF are both popular web application firewall solutions. This comparison will help you understand the key differences and choose the right one for your needs.

API gateway with built-in WAF plugin for enterprise customers. Kong is the most popular open source API gateway (35K+ GitHub stars, 312M+ downloads) built on NGINX, processing 400B+ API calls daily. The WAF plugin is an Enterprise-only add-on that protects API endpoints at the gateway layer.

Built-in WAF module for LiteSpeed Web Server providing ModSecurity-compatible protection with high performance and low resource usage.

Quick Comparison

Feature Kong Gateway WAF LiteSpeed Web Server WAF
Overall Rating 3.8/5 3.8/5
Free Tier No Yes
Pricing Model Tiered (Plus per-gateway + Enterprise custom) Per-server license
Ease of Use 3.2/5 4.0/5
Value for Money 3.0/5 4.5/5
Support 4.2/5 3.5/5
Platforms Linux (Ubuntu, RHEL, Debian, Amazon Linux, Alpine), Docker, Kubernetes (via Ingress Controller and Operator), AWS, Azure, GCP, ARM64, macOS (dev) Linux servers
Compliance SOC 2 Type II, FIPS 140-2 (Enterprise data planes), supports PCI DSS and HIPAA compliance PCI DSS (with proper configuration)

Pricing Comparison

Kong Gateway WAF

Model: Tiered (Plus per-gateway + Enterprise custom)

Kong Gateway OSS

Free

Kong Konnect Plus

From $225/mo

Kong Konnect Enterprise

Custom (annual)

Dedicated Cloud Gateway

$500/mo per control plane + $0.15/GB

View full pricing →

LiteSpeed Web Server WAF

Model: Per-server license

Free Tier Available

OpenLiteSpeed

Free

LiteSpeed Enterprise

From $0 (1-worker) to $92/month

View full pricing →

Features Comparison

Kong Gateway WAF

  • Gateway-Embedded WAF

    WAF runs as a plugin inside the Kong Gateway process, inspecting API traffic at the same layer where routing, authentication, and rate limiting occur. No separate WAF appliance or additional proxy hop needed.

  • OWASP Top 10 Protection

    Built-in protection against common web application attacks including SQL injection, cross-site scripting, command injection, and path traversal at the API gateway layer.

  • Plugin Ecosystem

    Over 100 plugins for security, traffic control, authentication, and observability. WAF works alongside bot detection, IP restriction, CORS, ACL, and rate limiting plugins in a configurable execution chain.

  • Third-Party WAF Integrations

    Open plugin architecture supports third-party WAF engines including open-appsec (ML-driven detection) and Wallarm (API security). Teams can choose the WAF engine that fits their threat model.

  • Kubernetes-Native Deployment

    Kong Ingress Controller and Kong Kubernetes Operator provide native Kubernetes integration. WAF policies can be managed declaratively through Kubernetes CRDs alongside gateway configuration.

  • Hybrid Mode

    Cloud-managed control plane with self-hosted data planes. WAF policies are centrally managed and distributed to data planes running in any environment, including air-gapped networks.

  • AI Gateway

    Dedicated AI gateway capabilities including LLM proxy, token-based rate limiting, semantic caching, PII sanitization, prompt guardrails, and MCP server proxy. WAF protects AI endpoints alongside traditional APIs.

  • Declarative Configuration

    Gateway and WAF configuration can be managed as code through declarative YAML/JSON, enabling GitOps workflows and CI/CD pipeline integration for security policy changes.

  • Advanced Rate Limiting

    Enterprise-grade rate limiting with sliding window counters, consumer groups, and cluster-wide synchronization. Works in conjunction with WAF to prevent both application-layer attacks and abuse.

LiteSpeed Web Server WAF

  • ModSecurity Compatibility

    Supports ModSecurity rules with significantly better performance than Apache mod_security.

  • Built-In WAF

    WAF integrated directly into the web server for minimal overhead.

  • OWASP CRS Support

    Compatible with the OWASP Core Rule Set; CRS must be enabled and the rule set installed, it is not active by default.

Which One Is Right for You?

The best WAF depends on your specific requirements, infrastructure, and team expertise.

Kong Gateway WAF

  • You need: Organizations already using Kong as their API gateway, Kubernetes-native architectures needing gateway-level WAF, teams wanting unified API management and security in one platform, enterprises with microservices architectures routing all traffic through an API gateway
  • You're using: Linux (Ubuntu, RHEL, Debian, Amazon Linux, Alpine), Docker, Kubernetes (via Ingress Controller and Operator), AWS, Azure, GCP, ARM64, macOS (dev)
Learn more →

LiteSpeed Web Server WAF

  • You need: Hosting providers, WordPress sites on LiteSpeed, organizations wanting server-level WAF
  • You want to start with a free tier
  • You're using: Linux servers
Learn more →

We recommend evaluating both options with a trial or free tier before committing. Consider your existing infrastructure, team expertise, compliance requirements, and budget.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better for startups: Kong Gateway WAF or LiteSpeed Web Server WAF?

LiteSpeed Web Server WAF offers a free tier while Kong Gateway WAF does not, making LiteSpeed Web Server WAF more accessible for budget-conscious startups. LiteSpeed Web Server WAF scores higher for ease of use (4.0/5), which is valuable for smaller teams. Consider your immediate security needs and growth plans when choosing.

Which has better support: Kong Gateway WAF or LiteSpeed Web Server WAF?

Kong Gateway WAF has a higher support rating (4.2/5) compared to LiteSpeed Web Server WAF (3.5/5). However, support quality can vary based on your plan tier - enterprise customers typically receive more responsive support from both providers. Consider evaluating support during a trial period.

Which is easier to implement: Kong Gateway WAF or LiteSpeed Web Server WAF?

LiteSpeed Web Server WAF scores higher for ease of use (4.0/5) versus Kong Gateway WAF (3.2/5). The actual implementation effort depends on your existing infrastructure and team expertise.

Which is more cost-effective: Kong Gateway WAF or LiteSpeed Web Server WAF?

LiteSpeed Web Server WAF offers a free tier while Kong Gateway WAF requires a paid plan. LiteSpeed Web Server WAF scores higher for value (4.5/5). Total cost depends on your traffic volume, required features, and support level needs.

Which works better with AWS: Kong Gateway WAF or LiteSpeed Web Server WAF?

Kong Gateway WAF explicitly supports AWS while LiteSpeed Web Server WAF's AWS integration may vary. Consider whether native AWS integration or cross-cloud portability matters more for your use case.