Best MCP Gateways for Business in 2026

The best MCP gateway for your business depends on where your systems already live and who has to manage it. A Kubernetes shop, an AWS shop and a team that just wants one safe URL for its AI tools will make different choices.

An MCP gateway sits between AI apps and the MCP servers they call. It gives you one front door where you can check identity, limit which tools each person can use, and log every call. If that idea is new, start with our explainer on what MCP gateways do and whether you need one.

Below are ten gateways we checked against each vendor's own docs and pricing pages on 28 October 2026. We did not install or benchmark them. Performance figures are the vendors' own claims.

How we chose

We included a product only if it met all of these tests:

• Live and public. A real MCP gateway product or project we could open and check on 28 October 2026.
• Clear pricing. Published pricing, a free open-source license, or a clear path to a quote.
• Security basics documented. The vendor's docs describe authentication, access control (scopes or roles) or logging.

We read each vendor's product docs, GitHub README and pricing page. We left out third-party "top 10" lists as sources. The order below is not a ranking.

MCP gateways compared

1. Kong AI Gateway: one gateway for LLM, MCP and agent traffic

What it is: Kong's AI Gateway docs say you can "define a single endpoint for any traffic type: LLM, MCP, or A2A." It can turn existing REST APIs into MCP tools and aggregate tools from several MCP servers. It also supports OAuth2 scoping, so write actions can need tighter access than reads.

Best for: Companies that already use Kong for API management and want MCP under the same controls.

Pricing: Kong's pricing page lists AI Management Plus "from $25/month" plus usage, with 1 million AI gateway requests a month included. Each extra million costs $200 a month. Enterprise is custom. There is a 30-day free trial.

Pros:

• One control plane for LLM, MCP and agent-to-agent (A2A) traffic.
• Maps existing REST APIs to MCP tools without a rebuild.
• OpenTelemetry metrics and audit logging, per Kong's docs.

Cons:

• No separate MCP price; MCP traffic counts toward general gateway limits.
• Paid AI plugins are an add-on on the Plus tier.

Checked against: Kong AI Gateway docs on 28 October 2026.

2. Docker MCP Gateway: containers for every server

What it is: Docker's MCP Gateway docs call it "Docker's open source solution for orchestrating Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers." It runs each MCP server in an isolated container with restricted privileges, network access and resources. It injects credentials and includes built-in logging and call tracing.

Best for: Developers and small teams who want a safer way to run local MCP servers on laptops or build machines.

Pricing: Free and open source. The GitHub repository is MIT licensed. Docker's docs add that the MCP Gateway "as part of Docker AI Governance is an invite-only feature," sold through Docker Sales, as of October 2026.

Pros:

• Container isolation limits what a bad server can reach.
• Secrets handled through Docker Desktop instead of plain config files.
• Works outside Docker Desktop through the docker mcp CLI plugin.

Cons:

• Aimed at running servers; less focused on company-wide identity and policy.
• Your team still has to vet which catalog servers to enable.

Checked against: Docker MCP Gateway docs on 28 October 2026.

3. Microsoft MCP Gateway: Kubernetes-native with Entra ID

What it is: The Microsoft MCP Gateway repository describes "a reverse proxy and management layer for Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers" in Kubernetes. It provides Microsoft Entra ID authentication and basic role authorization for servers and tools. A REST control plane deploys, updates and removes MCP servers.

Best for: IT teams running Kubernetes, especially on Azure Kubernetes Service, that already manage identity in Entra ID.

Pricing: Free and open source (MIT license).

Pros:

• Uses your existing Entra ID roles for access.
• Stateless routing scales across multiple router instances, per the README.
• Includes a web management portal.

Cons:

• Requires Kubernetes skills to run.
• The README says it needs MCP 2026-07-28 clients, so older clients may not connect.

Checked against: Microsoft MCP Gateway on GitHub on 28 October 2026.

4. IBM ContextForge: federate tools, agents and APIs

What it is: IBM's ContextForge repository calls it "an open source registry and proxy that federates tools, agents, and APIs into one clean endpoint." It can wrap REST services as virtual MCP servers and translate gRPC to MCP. It supports Basic, JWT or custom auth, plus OpenTelemetry tracing.

Best for: Engineering teams that need to expose many internal APIs to AI tools from one self-hosted endpoint.

Pricing: Free and open source (Apache 2.0). Its support guide lists optional commercial IBM Elite Support for v1.0.0-GA and later; terms on request.

Pros:

• Turns non-MCP services into MCP tools with retry and rate-limit policies.
• Also handles A2A connections to external agents.
• More than 40 plugins listed in the README.

Cons:

• You run, patch and secure it yourself.
• Broad feature set means more to configure.

Checked against: IBM ContextForge on GitHub on 28 October 2026.

5. Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Gateway: managed gateway inside AWS

What it is: AWS's AgentCore Gateway guide describes "a fully managed AI gateway" that converts APIs, Lambda functions and existing services into MCP tools. It handles inbound auth (checking the agent) and outbound auth (connecting to tools) in one service. It also offers semantic tool search and one-click integrations with Salesforce, Slack, Jira, Asana and Zendesk.

Best for: Companies that already build on AWS and want a serverless option.

Pricing: Usage-based. The AgentCore pricing page lists $0.005 per 1,000 API invocations, $0.025 per 1,000 search calls and $0.02 per 100 tools indexed per month. Data transfer is extra.

Pros:

• No servers to manage; it scales on demand.
• OAuth flows, token refresh and credential storage handled for you.
• Semantic search helps agents pick from large tool sets.

Cons:

• Ties your MCP layer to AWS.
• Usage pricing takes some modeling before you can predict a monthly bill.

Checked against: AgentCore Gateway docs on 28 October 2026.

6. Cloudflare MCP server portals: one URL behind Zero Trust

What it is: Cloudflare's MCP server portal docs say a portal "centralizes multiple Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers onto a single HTTP endpoint." Admins pick which tools each portal exposes, and Access policies decide who sees which server. Cloudflare Access logs individual tool requests.

Best for: Companies already using Cloudflare Zero Trust that want staff to connect AI apps through one approved URL.

Pricing: Cloudflare's Zero Trust plans page offers a free plan for a proof of concept. It does not list per-user prices; larger plans are on request. Logpush export of portal logs is Enterprise only.

Pros:

• Uses your existing identity provider and Access rules.
• Can rename tools and trim descriptions without touching upstream servers.
• Optional data loss prevention (DLP) scanning through Cloudflare Gateway.

Cons:

• Only remote HTTP MCP servers can be added, up to 80 per portal.
• Needs an active domain on Cloudflare and Zero Trust set up first.

Checked against: Cloudflare MCP server portals docs on 28 October 2026.

7. Bifrost (Maxim): open-source AI gateway with MCP controls

What it is: Bifrost is an Apache 2.0 AI gateway built by Maxim. Its MCP docs describe one /mcp endpoint, tool filtering per request, client or virtual key, and several auth modes including per-user OAuth. By default, "Bifrost does NOT automatically execute tool calls."

Best for: Teams that want one open-source gateway for both model calls and MCP tools.

Pricing: The Bifrost pricing page lists OSS as "Free Forever" and Enterprise as custom pricing, with a 14-day Enterprise trial.

Pros:

• Tool calls need approval unless you turn on agent mode.
• Per-virtual-key filtering limits tools by team or app.
• Maxim reports gateway overhead of 11 µs per request at 5,000 requests per second in its own benchmark.

Cons:

• The README lists "MCP gateway" among Enterprise capabilities, so check which MCP features are in the free version.
• The repo cites different overhead figures in different places.

Checked against: Bifrost MCP docs on 28 October 2026.

8. Portkey MCP Gateway: access control and logs for platform teams

What it is: Portkey's homepage now says "Portkey is now PRISMA AIRS AI Gateway," as of October 2026. Palo Alto Networks closed its acquisition of Portkey on 29 May 2026 and made it the core AI gateway for its Prisma AIRS platform. Its MCP Gateway docs call it "Portkey's solution for managing access to MCP servers." Clients sign in once, and the gateway injects credentials for each upstream server. Admins decide which workspaces and users reach each server, and "every tool call [is] logged with user, parameters, and response."

Best for: Platform teams already using Portkey to manage LLM usage.

Pricing: Portkey's pricing page lists a free Developer plan, Production at $49 a month plus $9 per extra 100,000 requests, and custom Enterprise. The pricing table does not say which plans include the MCP Gateway, so confirm with Portkey.

Pros:

• Works with Okta and Auth0 for identity.
• Built-in MCP registry so developers can browse approved servers.
• Logs filterable by server, user or time.

Cons:

• MCP Gateway plan availability is not stated on the pricing page.
• Most useful if you adopt the wider Portkey platform.

Checked against: Portkey MCP Gateway docs on 28 October 2026.

9. TrueFoundry MCP Gateway: registry, RBAC and approvals

What it is: TrueFoundry's MCP Gateway page describes "unified access to MCP Servers via a secure, discoverable, and enterprise-grade MCP gateway." It supports Okta and Azure AD login, role-based access per server, and approval flows. It says "every action is logged & every request is traceable."

Best for: Mid-size and larger companies that need approval workflows before teams can use a server.

Pricing: TrueFoundry's pricing page lists Developer free for up to 3 users and Pro at $25 per user per month. Pro overage is $20 per extra 100,000 requests. Enterprise is a custom annual commitment.

Pros:

• Clear published per-user pricing.
• One inventory for internal, third-party and on-prem servers.
• Prebuilt integrations for Slack, Confluence, Sentry and Datadog.

Cons:

• Free tier keeps logs for only 7 days.
• VPC, on-prem and data residency options are Enterprise only.

Checked against: TrueFoundry MCP Gateway page on 28 October 2026.

10. agentgateway: vendor-neutral, open-source data plane

What it is: agentgateway describes itself as "one high-performance gateway for service, LLM, and MCP traffic." The site says Solo.io donated it to the Linux Foundation. Its GitHub README lists OAuth, JWT and API key auth, fine-grained RBAC with a CEL policy engine, and OpenTelemetry observability.

Best for: Teams that want an open, foundation-hosted gateway with no single-vendor lock-in.

Pricing: Free and open source (Apache 2.0).

Pros:

• Tool access policies decide which tools each identity can call.
• MCP guardrails inspect calls and responses for issues like prompt injection.
• Supports stdio, HTTP, SSE and Streamable HTTP transports.

Cons:

• Policy rules use CEL expressions, which take some learning.
• No managed hosted version listed on the project site.

Checked against: agentgateway site on 28 October 2026.

How to pick between them

Start with where you already are. These rules of thumb cover most cases:

1. Already on a cloud? AWS teams should look first at AgentCore Gateway. Cloudflare Zero Trust customers should look at MCP server portals.
2. Already on an API gateway? Kong users can add MCP without a new vendor.
3. Need to self-host? Compare ContextForge, Microsoft MCP Gateway and agentgateway. Pick the one whose identity model matches yours.
4. Mostly developers on laptops? Docker MCP Gateway is the lightest start.
5. Want per-user pricing and approvals? Compare TrueFoundry and Portkey.

Whatever you pick, check the basics from our MCP security risks guide. Every gateway still depends on the servers behind it. Our MCP governance guide for IT leaders covers logging and access policy in more depth. If you are still choosing servers, use our checklist for choosing MCP servers.

Next step

Not sure you need a gateway yet? Read MCP gateways explained for a plain-English walk-through. If you want a second opinion on your setup, our MCP readiness audit reviews the servers, access and logging you have today. Find more guides in The MCP Guide.

Frequently asked questions