How to evaluate an AI Gateway

Evaluating an AI gateway comes down to three questions: does it technically do what you need? Will your security team sign off on it? And will the vendor be there when something breaks in production?

Key takeaways:

• 45% of software companies surveyed already have MCP in production, and security concerns are the top obstacle for the rest, cited by 64% of respondents.
• A technical capability matrix, not a vendor’s own pitch deck, should drive the shortlist.
• Vendor responsiveness during the evaluation itself is a leading indicator of support quality after signing, not a separate concern.
• Pricing negotiations go better when they’re separated from the technical decision, not folded into the same conversation.
• The vendors that consistently win these evaluations tend to share three traits: fast, transparent answers during diligence; MCP credential handling that goes beyond static API keys; and commercial terms built around the customer’s growth rather than against it.

What’s the first step in evaluating an AI Gateway?

Build your own requirements list before taking a single vendor demo, not after. A demo shaped entirely by what the vendor chose to show you will always look impressive and will always skip the gaps.

The strongest evaluations start with a technical capability matrix: a spreadsheet of specific, testable requirements (identity integration, MCP tool-call governance, audit logging format, data residency, redaction policy, and so on) scored against each vendor under consideration.

How do MCP-specific requirements differ from general AI requirements?

MCP introduces a credential and tool-governance surface that a generic “AI policy” checklist usually misses entirely. If your evaluation only asks about model access and content filtering, it’s evaluating last year’s problem.

Security concerns are already the dominant blocker industry-wide: the same research found 64% of software company respondents cited security concerns as their top obstacle to broader MCP adoption, ahead of any other factor, even as 45% already have some form of MCP in production.

FAQs

How many vendors should you evaluate in parallel?

Two to three, in most cases. Evaluating one vendor in isolation removes your negotiating leverage and your ability to sanity-check claims.

What should the security and compliance review cover?

The direct answer: a completed security questionnaire, reviewed alongside the actual contract paperwork (data services agreement, order form) rather than in isolation, because the two need to agree with each other before signature.

What should happen before you sign?

A clear plan for production rollout, not just a signed contract. The best evaluations end with an explicit answer to “what does week one in production look like,” not just “what does the contract say.”

How long should an AI gateway evaluation take?

Most thorough evaluations run four to eight weeks from first technical call to signed contract, including a technical capability review, a security and compliance review, and a pricing negotiation. Rushing past the technical or security review to close faster is the most common source of regret six months into a rollout.

Should pricing be discussed during the technical evaluation?

Keep them as separate conversations where possible. Folding budget pressure into a technical evaluation tends to bias the comparison toward the cheapest option rather than the best fit.

What questions should be on every AI gateway RFP?

At minimum: how MCP servers with only static API key support are handled, what the deployment model requires from your team operationally, how identity and SSO integration works, what audit log format and retention are provided, and what a production incident response actually looks like in practice, not just in the SLA document.

Is a lower price always a red flag in an AI gateway evaluation?

Not automatically, but it’s worth understanding why. A lower price sometimes reflects a genuinely leaner product with less infrastructure to fund, sometimes reflects a vendor still building an early customer base and pricing aggressively to win logos.

What does a vendor that passes this checklist look like?

One that treats the evaluation itself as the first proof point, not a formality before the real relationship starts. Everything in this checklist is really testing the same underlying question: will this vendor still be this good once the contract is signed and the pressure to perform eases off.