We compared Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Azure Front Door based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Based on user reviews, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is praised for its load balancing capabilities, SSL termination, scalability, and integration with Azure services. Users value its ease of use, customization options, and positive ROI. On the other hand, Azure Front Door is appreciated for traffic management, security measures, scalability, and integration with Azure services. Users highlight its monitoring and analytics capabilities, performance improvement, and overall user experience. Areas for improvement include scalability, performance, user interface, and documentation for Azure Application Gateway, while Azure Front Door could focus on performance, stability, user-friendliness, error handling, customization, and security enhancements.
Features: Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is praised for its excellent load balancing capabilities, efficient SSL termination, and seamless integration. Azure Front Door is highly regarded for its traffic management, advanced security measures, scalability, and high availability. Additionally, it simplifies content delivery and offers robust monitoring and analytics capabilities.
Pricing and ROI: Based on user feedback, the setup cost for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is minimal, while Azure Front Door's setup cost is not explicitly mentioned. The pricing for Application Gateway is considered fair, but there is no information regarding Front Door's pricing., In terms of ROI, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway delivers positive returns with its efficient and reliable performance, cost-effectiveness, scalability, and user-friendly management. On the other hand, Azure Front Door offers a positive ROI through its effective traffic distribution, enhanced website performance, scalability, cost-effectiveness, and seamless integration with other Azure services.
Room for Improvement: Some areas of improvement for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway include enhancing scalability and performance capabilities, improving the user interface and documentation, and providing better support resources. On the other hand, Azure Front Door could benefit from enhancing performance and stability, refining the configuration process to be more user-friendly, improving error handling and troubleshooting capabilities, increasing customization options, and addressing security concerns.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway highlight varying durations for deployment and setup, ranging from a week to three months. On the other hand, Azure Front Door also has mixed feedback, with some users taking a week for both deployment and setup, and others requiring three months and a week., Users have praised the customer service and support provided by both Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Azure Front Door. Azure Application Gateway's support is described as top-notch, reliable, and efficient. Azure Front Door's support team is commended for their prompt response and willingness to address queries.
The summary above is based on 26 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Azure Front Door users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"The solution is good."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"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 pricing is quite good."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"The product's performance should be better."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"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."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". 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". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Akamai, AWS Global Accelerator and Azure Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our Azure Front Door vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.
