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."The feature that I like the most is the scalability. The solutions I build often have many pieces, which are very complicated. If a client comes to me with a design, my developer has made this as a template or a cloud formation script. It's a design on paper, and I want it executed a certain way. I can do that quickly and repeatedly with AWS. That is a considerable advantage because I can take that template and do it five times in different zones. That is an excellent feature based on a template, et cetera."
"It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy."
"It is a very scalable solution in which you can add more servers instantly."
"Security and monitoring for high-performance applications are some of the top features."
"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 solution offers good load balancing."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"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 most valuable feature is WAF."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"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 solution needs to guarantee stability because multiple loads behind a load balancer can cause service unavailability."
"We faced some issues with the health check."
"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 machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict."
"They should improve the solution's pricing."
"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."
"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."
"The product's stability is an area with a slight shortcoming, which can be improved."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
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 38 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, Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF 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.
