We performed a comparison between Kemp LoadMaster 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 old process of manually having to redirect Outlook Web Access traffic and Email traffic to a second server is a thing of the past."
"We really like the performance of this solution."
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"Exchange load balancing and reverse proxy for Skype for Business are key features."
"The configuration is really easy and the web portal is self-explanatory."
"It has greatly fortified the performance and uptime of our front-door email ingress, simplified and segmented mail routing, and reduced admin overhead for mail issue resolution and troubleshooting."
"Managing and maintaining multiple servers is done in a single place."
"The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"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."
"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 solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"I think there should be more visual instructions on how to configure advanced features."
"Certificate installations could be simplified and modernized, and allowed to be monitored for expirations/issues."
"UI is very basic and unattractive."
"Third, the password history restriction needs improvement. For example, the password policy will restrict the user to always use a unique password combination. The password should not be reused for a minimum of three generations of passwords."
"Some documentation is out of date versus the new version, and things have been moved."
"It has all types of logs and they are very detailed, but it's a little bit hard to search for a single event."
"To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, that there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools."
"Over the last several major versions, the GUI has remained virtually unchanged and still seems lacking."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"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."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". 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". Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, 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 Kemp LoadMaster 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.
