Pyyan / Compare / Kong AI Gateway vs LiteLLM vs Requesty vs Portkey
Kong AI Gateway vs LiteLLM vs Requesty vs Portkey
4 of 5Routers & Gateways · verified 13 Aug 2026
| Specification | Kong AI Gateway | LiteLLM | Requesty | Portkey |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Only sensible if you already run Kong. | The self-hosted standard. | Lowest measured overhead. | Routing plus guardrails and compliance. |
| Added latency | Varies | Self-hosted | 8ms P50 | 8–20ms |
| Hosting | Self | Self | Managed | Both |
| Caching | — | Redis | — | Semantic |
| Category | Routers & Gateways | Routers & Gateways | Routers & Gateways | Routers & Gateways |
| Official | Kong ↗ | BerriAI ↗ | Requesty ↗ | Portkey ↗ |
Highlighted rows are where these differ.
Kong AI Gateway
- Plugin ecosystem was built for REST, not LLMs
- No token-level cost attribution
Best for existing Kong users.
LiteLLM
- Budget controls and Redis caching
- Zero marginal cost, you run it
Best for production.
Portkey
- Best caching implementation
- Prompt management and audit trail
Best for regulated teams.