We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"Its visibility and login mechanism are the best parts. In addition to the great visibility it has a great dashboard and an easy to configure graphic user interface, a beautiful GUI."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"The most valuable feature of the solution for my organization is its UI since it allows us to see the clusters while providing a very specific and good overall understanding."
"What's most valuable in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its deployment capability, the ability to deploy in a dispersed service, with the service engines that can disperse and have a single control plane that can control the load balancing services across any available platform, wherever needed. The analytics of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and flexibility of deployment are its most valuable features and the reasons why many people buy it."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"One struggle with Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its integration with other VMware products. Integration could be improved in the solution so that you have a more unified control plane with it and other data center security and networking products that VMware sells. There has been a bit of a lag on the roadmap of new features that have come out there recently, but better interoperability with the hyperscale environments such as the AWS, Azure, GCPs of the world, and simpler deployment and interoperability with those existing tools, are areas that are receiving attention and could use additional attention today. These are the areas for improvement in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
More Avi Networks Software Load Balancer Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is ranked 9th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer writes "Easy to set up and has good integration into the host environment but needs better third party integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
