head to head · open source

kong vs cds

kong has 44,148 GitHub stars, 5,210 forks, 200 open issues and last shipped 11 days ago. cds has 4,843 stars, 453 forks, 160 open issues and last shipped yesterday. kong leads on adoption by 812% (44,148 vs 4,843 stars). kong is written in Lua under Apache-2.0; cds is written in Go under BSD-3-Clause. kong has attracted 12% as many forks as stars, cds 9%. cds was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (devops), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

kong ★ 44K cds ★ 4.8K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

kong cds
GitHub stars ★ 44K ★ 4.8K
License Apache-2.0 BSD-3-Clause
Written in Lua Go
Last push 2026-09-07 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 5.2K ⑂ 453
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick kong if

  • You weight community size — 44K stars and counting
  • You want the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Lua
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full kong profile →

pick cds if

  • You want the cds feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the BSD-3-Clause license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and cds fits your workflow better

full cds profile →

About kong

Kong (also known as Kong Gateway) is an open source, cloud native, platform agnostic API, LLM, and MCP gateway, licensed under Apache 2.0, built for platform, DevOps, and AI engineering teams that need a single high performance layer to route, secure, and observe both conventional API traffic and agentic LLM traffic.

read the full kong overview →

About cds

CDS is an open source, enterprise grade continuous delivery and DevOps automation platform written in Go, for teams that build, run and own their own CI/CD workflows and want to script and scale them without depending on a hosted vendor.

read the full cds overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

Immich ★ 114K Uptime Kuma ★ 91K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K NetData ★ 81K Elasticsearch ★ 78K

Related comparisons

kong vs trivy kong vs opentofu kong vs jenkins kong vs pulumi kong vs floci kong vs argo-cd kong vs sops trivy vs opentofu uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana netdata vs grafana uptime-kuma vs huginn worldmonitor vs huginn immich vs paperless-ngx immich vs ceph immich vs filestash immich vs garage immich vs storj immich vs alarik immich vs spinifex paperless-ngx vs ceph

More Cloud Infrastructure Management projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Cloud Infrastructure Management field.

kong vs trivy kong vs OpenTofu kong vs jenkins kong vs Pulumi kong vs floci kong vs argo-cd kong vs sops kong vs wtf kong vs dagger kong vs task kong vs aws-cdk kong vs infracost

Frequently asked questions

Is kong or cds more popular?

kong has 44,148 GitHub stars and cds has 4,843. kong has the larger community by that measure.

Are kong and cds free?

Both are open source. kong is licensed under Apache-2.0 and cds under BSD-3-Clause. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between kong and cds?

kong is written in Lua and cds in Go. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, kong or cds?

Choose kong if you want the larger community (44,148 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose cds if its feature set, stack or BSD-3-Clause licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.