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 solution offers good load balancing."
"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."
"It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy."
"The solution is very well integrated into Amazon's services."
"Security and monitoring for high-performance applications are some of the top features."
"It is a very scalable solution in which you can add more servers instantly."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"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."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"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."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"The product's stability is an area with a slight shortcoming, which can be improved."
"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."
"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 solution needs to guarantee stability because multiple loads behind a load balancer can cause service unavailability."
"We faced some issues with the health check."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"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."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
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 40 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, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door 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.