Below is a focused, practical comparison of WSO2, MuleSoft (Anypoint), and Kong to help you choose the right platform for API management and integration. I cover core capabilities, architecture & deployment, typical use cases, strengths, weaknesses, licensing/pricing model (high-level), and guidance on which to choose.

Summary (one-line)

• WSO2: Full-featured open-source integration + API management platform (ESB, API manager, identity) with strong developer control and on‑prem/cloud flexibility.
• MuleSoft (Anypoint Platform): Enterprise-grade, mature hybrid integration platform focused on application-to-application and B2B integration with extensive connectors and strong tooling/partner ecosystem.
• Kong: Lightweight, high-performance API gateway and service connectivity layer (open-source + enterprise) optimized for modern microservices, ingress, service mesh and edge/API management.

Core capabilities

• WSO2
  • API management (design, publish, secure, monetise), ESB/integration (message mediation, transformations), identity & access management (IAM), analytics, and streaming (in some product suites).
  • Strong support for SOAP, REST, GraphQL, JMS, AMQP, and many integration patterns.
• MuleSoft (Anypoint)
  • API design, management, runtime (Mule runtime), ESB-style integration, B2B/EDI, data mapping, connectors for many SaaS/legacy systems.
  • Rich visual design tooling (Anypoint Studio), API-led connectivity approach.
• Kong
  • API gateway, load balancing, authentication, rate-limiting, logging, plugin architecture, ingress controller for Kubernetes, service mesh integrations (Kuma/Envoy-based).
  • Focused on the edge and service-to-service connectivity rather than heavyweight ESB features.

Architecture & deployment

• WSO2
  • Modular products (API Manager, EI/Integration, Identity Server, Stream Processor). Can be run standalone or composed into a platform. Supports on‑premises, private/public cloud, and containers (Kubernetes).
• MuleSoft
  • Centralized Anypoint Platform with design/runtime/management. Mule runtime can run on-prem, cloud (CloudHub), hybrid, or in Kubernetes. Strong SaaS control plane (Anypoint).
• Kong
  • Lightweight gateway (Kong Gateway) with a control plane (Kong Konnect for enterprise SaaS) and datastore (DB-less or DB-backed). Native Kubernetes integrations; very suited for containerized environments.

Connectivity & adapters

• WSO2: Broad protocol support plus custom mediators. Good for enterprise apps and legacy systems.
• MuleSoft: Very large connector ecosystem (Salesforce, SAP, AWS, database, messaging systems), often easiest for SaaS/ERP integration.
• Kong: Focused on HTTP/gRPC/websocket and plugin model; integrations via plugins and sidecar patterns rather than many out‑of‑the‑box heavy adapters.

Performance & scalability

• WSO2: Scales well but can be heavier because of full integration stack. Kubernetes deployment needed for elastic scaling.
• MuleSoft: Designed for enterprise throughput; CloudHub and autoscaling help. Resource footprint typically larger than lightweight gateways.
• Kong: Optimized for high throughput, low latency. Good for edge/API gateway use cases at scale.

Security & governance

• WSO2: Strong IAM and policy capabilities (OAuth2, JWT, API keys, role-based access). Good governance features across APIs and identity.
• MuleSoft: Enterprise-grade security, policy management, and governance; strong support for secure integration patterns and role-based access.
• Kong: Robust auth plugins (OAuth2, JWT, key-auth), mTLS, and fine-grained policies at the gateway/edge. For broader governance (cataloging, lifecycle) you need the enterprise layer.

Developer experience & tooling

• WSO2: API Publisher/Store, developer portal, CLI and management console. More configuration- and code-centric than MuleSoft.
• MuleSoft: Very strong IDE (Anypoint Studio), graphical flows, reusable assets exchange, and extensive documentation — generally excellent for developer onboarding.
• Kong: Simple admin API and declarative config; plugins are how functionality is extended. Developer portal & lifecycle features are more prominent in Konnect (enterprise).

Observability & analytics

• WSO2: Built-in analytics dashboards and monitoring, integrations with external logging/monitoring.
• MuleSoft: Good management console and monitoring; Anypoint Monitoring provides metrics/tracing.
• Kong: Good metrics via Prometheus, Grafana, logs; enterprise Konnect adds richer analytics and developer portal features.

Ecosystem & community

• WSO2: Active open-source community and commercial support from WSO2. Strong in APIM + identity use cases.
• MuleSoft: Large enterprise customer base, broad partner network, rich training/certification ecosystem.
• Kong: Fast-growing community for cloud-native API gateway use; open-source and enterprise options plus third-party ecosystem.

Licensing & cost (high-level)

• WSO2: Historically open-source with commercial subscriptions for support and enterprise features. Costs depend on deployment scale and support level.
• MuleSoft: Commercial product with licensing (typically subscription, often priced per-core/worker or as CloudHub units). Tends to be relatively expensive but includes strong enterprise features and support.
• Kong: Open-source core (Kong Gateway) and commercial offerings (Konnect/Kong Enterprise) with subscription pricing. Kong is often more cost-effective for high-throughput gateway use cases.

Typical use cases / when to choose

• Choose WSO2 if:
  • You need an integrated stack (API manager + ESB + identity) with open-source roots.
  • You want fine-grained control, on‑prem or hybrid deployments, and strong identity/integration features.
• Choose MuleSoft if:
  • You need a mature enterprise integration platform (lots of connectors), visual tooling, and strong organizational support for complex application-to-application and B2B integration.
  • Your organization values vendor support, training, and a proven enterprise ecosystem.
• Choose Kong if:
  • You need a high-performance API gateway or ingress for cloud-native/microservices/Kubernetes environments.
  • You prioritize low latency, scalability, and a plugin-based extensibility model for service connectivity and security.
  • You want a lightweight edge layer and may pair it with a separate integration/ESB platform.

Strengths & tradeoffs (short)

• WSO2: + Integrated suite, open source, strong IAM. − More configuration complexity, heavier for pure gateway needs.
• MuleSoft: + Rich connectors, excellent tooling, enterprise support. − Higher cost, heavier footprint, steeper licensing.
• Kong: + Fast, lightweight, cloud-native, cost-effective for gateway. − Not a full ESB; needs other tools for deep data transformation/B2B workflows and advanced integration patterns.

Deployment/composition recommendations

• API gateway + full integration: Use Kong as the gateway in front of microservices and WSO2 or MuleSoft as the integration/ESB layer (or WSO2 alone if you want an all-in-one open-source stack).
• Cloud-native microservices: Kong Gateway (with service mesh integration) + lightweight integration services or serverless functions.
• Enterprise SaaS/ERP integrations: MuleSoft for quick connector use and managed runtimes; optionally expose APIs via Kong for edge performance.

Decision checklist (quick)

• Need many prebuilt SaaS/ERP connectors & visual IDE → MuleSoft.
• Want open-source stack that includes API management, ESB, and IAM → WSO2.
• Need high-performance API gateway / ingress in Kubernetes or microservices → Kong.

If you want, I can:

• Produce a side-by-side feature matrix tailored to your priorities (cost sensitivity, cloud vs on‑prem, Kubernetes usage, number of connectors needed).
• Compare specific features you care about (e.g., OAuth flows supported, GraphQL support, SOAP->REST transformation, specific connector availability). Tell me which specifics matter and I’ll generate a concise matrix.