We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Radware Alteon 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 most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"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."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability. During the time that I have been using it, it has not undergone a service failure... And with the integrated application protection, we have not suffered from attacks anymore."
"The strength of this solution is the application delivery controller."
"It is easy to expand. Our clients are enterprise-size."
"The most valuable features of Radware Alteon are the reverse proxy functionality and the SSL offload and hardware."
"The solution has been very stable."
"The product offers high availability."
"The most valuable feature is the load-balancing reverse proxy."
"The interface is easy, it's friendly, and has good alerting."
"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."
"The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"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."
"Support is very important because if we get good support, we'll be able to sell and supply more numbers."
"The reverse proxy piece is a little bit complicated. If the reverse proxy were easier to implement, that would help."
"I would like this solution to have an integration tool that will convert configuration from other software, into readable values for this product during implementation."
"Performance could be improved."
"The solution could be more open to additional third-party add-ons being integrated into it."
"The community portal does not have a place to find scripts."
"I would like for the load balancing to work with premier and the cloud, a mix of premium and cloud."
"Load balancing needs improvement. It needs better integration. I heard f5 works as a DNS operator which is not available in this solution. It would be better if that was implemented."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 33 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, HAProxy and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Radware Alteon report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors and best Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.