Reframing Gateway API Benchmarks: A practical look at what really matters

As Kubernetes-native API gateways become increasingly central to cloud-native infrastructure, it’s natural to want to compare them. Benchmarks like gateway-api-bench attempt to do this by measuring low-level performance metrics such as xDS translation time, memory footprint, and route scalability.

While these metrics may appeal to infrastructure purists, they miss what matters most in real-world adoption: business outcomes, operational reliability, and developer productivity.

In this post, we outline why these benchmarks, while technically interesting, are largely irrelevant from a business and product strategy perspective — and we’ll explain why platforms like Saaras EnRoute Gateway offer a much more compelling value proposition for real-world teams.

1. Microsecond Differences Don’t Matter to Users

The benchmark evaluates how quickly a Gateway API implementation translates configuration into Envoy's xDS format. These differences are often in the range of milliseconds or less. For end-users and business stakeholders, this simply doesn’t matter.

What does matter:

• Uptime
• API reliability
• Ease of configuration
• Integration with existing workflows

Shaving 500ms off a control plane update might feel good on a chart, but it’s not what keeps customers loyal or systems secure.

2. Synthetic Benchmarks Miss Real-World Complexity

Benchmarks are typically run in pristine environments:

• Cold starts
• Static routes
• No authentication, authorization, or secrets
• No config churn or updates

Production clusters are very different:

• Routing changes frequently
• Teams update policies asynchronously
• Configuration is tied to GitOps workflows, Helm charts, or CI/CD
• Services get added or removed daily

A control plane that performs well in a static benchmark could still struggle under the messiness of real operational load.

3. Envoy-Based Gateways Are Fundamentally Similar

A key detail often overlooked in these comparisons: nearly all modern ingress controllers and API gateways are built on top of Envoy. Whether it's KGateway, Envoy Gateway, Emissary (Ambassador), Gloo, or Contour — they all rely on:

• The same underlying Envoy proxy
• The same xDS APIs
• Similar L7 routing primitives
• TLS termination, HTTP/2 support, and filter chains

Most even adopt each other’s ideas, best practices, and sometimes even code.

That means these projects are functionally similar at the data plane. The marginal gains in translation speed or config formatting are not where value is created.

What actually distinguishes them is:

• How well the control plane is architected
• How scalable and responsive the system is under load
• How easily it integrates into complex organizational workflows
• Whether it supports safe multi-tenancy, can recover from failure, and gracefully handles large config churn

You don’t win in production by having the fastest Envoy config push. You win by delivering stability, clear observability, and safe extensibility at scale.

4. CRD Design Is More Important Than Translation Speed

One of the most underappreciated aspects of control plane design is how it models its configuration using Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs).

Why this matters:

• Tenant isolation: With granular CRDs it's easier to assign ownership across namespaces or teams without forcing global config updates.
• Scoped reconciliation: Fine-grained CRDs let the controller update only what's necessary, improving performance and reducing the blast radius of changes.
• Multi-team workflows: Teams can own their own routes and policies independently of others — critical for scaling in large organizations.
• Stability under scale: A monolithic CRD (like Proxy of ConfigMap with 10K lines of YAML) is more likely to hit Kubernetes etcd or API server limits and cause outages.

Business impact: A system with a smart CRD layout can scale from 10 to 10,000 services without rewriting configs or redesigning tenant boundaries — something no benchmark captures.

5. Real Differentiators Are Feature-Based

Businesses don’t pick gateways based on raw speed. They choose them because they:

• Integrate cleanly with Kubernetes
• Support fine-grained traffic policies
• Enforce security requirements like JWT, mTLS, and rate limits
• Provide observability and logs that help with debugging
• Handle multi-tenant routing or namespace delegation cleanly

A product that delivers these features well — even with a slightly slower control plane — is vastly more valuable.

6. Engineering Time Should Focus on User Impact

Benchmarks like these can inadvertently encourage teams to optimize the wrong things. Improving translation speed from 1.2s to 0.9s looks good in a blog post — but does nothing to improve user experience if developers are still stuck writing overly complex YAML or can’t monitor traffic properly.

The best engineering effort is spent improving:

• GitOps integration
• Validations and error messages
• Documentation and UX
• Support for widely used extensions (e.g., header rewrites, features for secure deployments, consistent routing with/without SNI)

7. Gateway API Was Designed for Standardization, Not Speed Contests

The Gateway API exists to unify ingress behavior across tools and vendors — not to crown a performance winner. By focusing on compatibility, policy expressiveness, and operational clarity, it aims to solve long-standing fragmentation in Kubernetes networking.

Focusing narrowly on milliseconds of control-plane latency undermines the broader goals of interoperability, safety, and extensibility.

8. Why Saaras EnRoute Gateway Stands Out

In a sea of lookalike Envoy-based ingress controllers, Saaras EnRoute Gateway distinguishes itself through thoughtful architecture, production-readiness, and a no-surprises business model.

Here’s what makes EnRoute a compelling choice for modern platform teams:

Built for Scale and Simplicity

• Minimalist, modular control plane – avoids complexity bloat and is easy to extend or integrate.
• Clean CRD structure – intuitive and Kubernetes-native, enabling GitOps workflows and clear ownership boundaries.
• Multi-tenancy by design – built to support namespace isolation, delegated route control, and team-based policy enforcement.

Security and Policy First

• Native support for JWT validation, external auth, rate limiting, mTLS, and header transformations out of the box.
• Focuses on zero-trust architectures and gives teams policy guardrails that scale with growth.

Operationally Reliable

• Proven in production to handle thousands of routes with low memory usage and fast config propagation.
• Designed to remain stable during frequent config churn — a differentiator over academic or "hello world" Envoy wrappers.

Exceptional Support and Predictable Pricing

• World-class support directly from the engineers who build EnRoute — fast response, deep context, no hand-offs.
• Deterministic pricing that aligns with usage tiers, not request counts or vague “API units.”
• Teams can run a robust, production-grade Envoy Ingress without being locked into bloated enterprise contracts or unpredictable bills.

Bottom line: You shouldn’t have to pay a fortune to run secure, scalable ingress.

Final Takeaway

Benchmarks like gateway-api-bench are useful internal tools, but they don’t determine production success.

‍

‍

If you want something that runs in production without surprises — choose a gateway like EnRoute that’s built for scale, priced with transparency, and backed by real support.

‍