Index › IT › Developer platform › API gateways › Gravitee vs Traefik Hub
API gateways · November 2026 Edition

Gravitee vs Traefik Hub

Zero of fourteen models named Gravitee first on the direct prompt; zero named Traefik Hub. Gravitee was named by ten of the fourteen models and Traefik Hub by ten and Gravitee carries 19 labels and Traefik Hub 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Gravitee

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

Traefik Hub

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#7#8A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels1917A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Gravitee reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Kong Gateway was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Kong Gateway vs Gravitee · Kong Gateway vs Traefik Hub · Amazon API Gateway vs Gravitee

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.
GraviteeFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTraefik Hub
Direct00
Paraphrase001 against Traefik Hub
Comparative00
Budget-constrained01
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Gravitee
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 Gravitee and Traefik Hub stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
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
Gravitee Traefik Hub first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Gravitee on the left and Traefik Hub on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Gravitee, Tyk
DeepSeek V4 FlashAzure API Management, Kong Gateway alternatives: Gravitee, Tyk
MiniMax M2.5Kong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Gravitee, KrakenD, MuleSoft Anypoint Platform

Neither was named

11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Kong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Tyk, Zuplo
GPT-5.4 miniAmazon API Gateway, Azure API Management alternatives: Kong Gateway, Tyk
Perplexity SonarKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Zuplo
Grok 4.20Kong Gateway, Tyk alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management
Mistral SmallKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Tyk
Llama 4 MaverickKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apache APISIX, Azure API Management, NGINX
Qwen 3.7 FlashKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Azure API Management
Kimi K2Kong Gateway alternatives: Azure API Management, Tyk
GLM 4.7 FlashXKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Azure API Management, Tyk
GPT-6 LunaTyk Cloud or Tyk Hybrid alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Kong Gateway
Muse Glimmer 30BKong Gateway alternatives: Amazon API Gateway, Azure API Management, Zuplo

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
Level: the same share of first choices.
Gravitee0%#9 of 12
Traefik Hub0%#6 of 12
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Gravitee2%#7 of 15
Traefik Hub2%#8 of 15
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Gravitee leads by four points.
Gravitee4%#5 of 11
Traefik Hub0%#– of 11
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Gravitee

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

“Apimolo, Gravitee (SaaS) | Caution | Data residency issues; reliance on third-party uptime.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“An open-source, event-native API Gateway like Gravitee can offer flexibility and future-proofing.” Llama 4 Maverick · scale 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. Four of five in this category shown.

“lacks full API management (no developer portal, limited analytics)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“For absolute zero cost, go with Kong Gateway OSS or Traefik if you have technical resources.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Traefik Enterprise / Gloo Gateway (Envoy-based): Excellent if your primary workload is inside Kubernetes” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · alternative
“Safer Alternatives to Consider - Open-source: Kong (with awareness of limitations), Tyk, Envoy, Traefik” Kimi K2 · negative 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.