Ambassador vs Envoy: What are the differences?

Introduction

In the realm of modern service mesh architectures, both Ambassador and Envoy are popular choices to manage and control network traffic. While they share similarities, there are distinct differences between the two that set them apart.

1. Distributed control plane: One notable difference between Ambassador and Envoy lies in their control plane architecture. Ambassador utilizes a centralized control plane setup, which means that the configuration, state, and control are managed by a central system. On the other hand, Envoy employs a distributed control plane, where the responsibility for control and configuration is spread across multiple instances, enhancing redundancy and fault tolerance.

2. Configuration flexibility: When it comes to flexibility in configuration, Envoy offers a greater range of options compared to Ambassador. Envoy provides a rich set of features and configuration parameters that allow fine-tuning of network traffic handling, making it more suitable for complex and advanced use cases. In contrast, Ambassador offers a simpler and more streamlined configuration model, which may be more apt for straightforward routing scenarios.

3. Performance and efficiency: In terms of performance and efficiency, Envoy has gained recognition for its high performance and low resource footprint. It is designed with performance optimizations and supports advanced features like connection pooling, enabling it to handle large volumes of traffic efficiently. While Ambassador also offers high performance capabilities, it may require more resources to attain similar levels of efficiency compared to Envoy.

4. Integration with ecosystem: Ambassador and Envoy differ in their approach to integration with the wider service mesh ecosystem. Envoy has been adopted as the default data plane for several service mesh frameworks, such as Istio, providing seamless compatibility and interoperability. On the other hand, Ambassador positions itself as a more lightweight and simpler option that can work well with various service mesh solutions, allowing users to choose their preferred ecosystem components.

5. Observability and monitoring: When it comes to observability and monitoring capabilities, Envoy stands out with its extensive built-in observability features. It offers detailed insights into network traffic, rich metrics collection, and integration with popular observability tools like Prometheus and Zipkin. While Ambassador provides basic observability features, it may require additional customization or integration with external tools to achieve a similar level of monitoring and visibility.

6. Community and support: Both Ambassador and Envoy have active and thriving communities supporting their development, but they differ in terms of community focus. Envoy boasts a broader community due to its adoption as a widely-used data plane, making it easier to find resources, documentation, and community-driven support. Ambassador, while having a smaller community, benefits from the support and backing of the larger Kubernetes ecosystem, ensuring ongoing development and maintenance.

In summary, Ambassador and Envoy have key differences including their control plane architecture, configuration flexibility, performance and efficiency, integration with the service mesh ecosystem, observability and monitoring capabilities, and community support. Each offers unique strengths and approaches to managing network traffic, allowing users to choose the one that aligns best with their specific requirements.