We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Load Balancing 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."It is a very scalable solution in which you can add more servers instantly."
"The solution is very well integrated into Amazon's services."
"It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy."
"Security and monitoring for high-performance applications are some of the top features."
"The solution offers good load balancing."
"Amazon Elastic Load Balancing transfers the data securely from servers to users and splits the traffic based on peak times."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scaling."
"It is straightforward to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"One issue that we faced with ALB was that leaf-level certificate validation was not happening. It is not that user-friendly in that aspect."
"The reporting could be simplified so that the client sees a report of what they cached at the end of the month and the number of hits. It should have metrics above and beyond their Google analytics, etc. You can't do that with the solutions from AWS. You have to build sophisticated cloud trails, reports, dashboards, etc. The setup is significant, and it's hard to manage. You'll need to hire someone or pay a consultant on a regular basis to manage it, and it's not for the faint of heart."
"The machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict."
"The product's stability is an area with a slight shortcoming, which can be improved."
"We faced some issues with the health check."
"The solution needs to guarantee stability because multiple loads behind a load balancer can cause service unavailability."
"It would be good if we had a product that integrates well with third-party vendors. Some of our customers want a multi-cloud solution. They don't want to be tied up to or be in just one cloud."
"They should improve the solution's pricing."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
More Amazon Elastic Load Balancing Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is ranked 11th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 9 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 40 reviews. Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing writes "A tool that offers its users resiliency, high availability, and a great scalability". 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". Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy and NGINX Plus, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and NGINX Plus. See our Amazon Elastic Load Balancing 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.
