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."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 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 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."
"The solution is stable."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"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."
"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."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The pricing is quite good."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"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."
"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."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"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."
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 40 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 Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. 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.
