We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: F5 BIG-IP comes out on top in this comparison. It is powerful and flexible with a proven ROI. Azure Application Gateway does come out on top in the pricing and ease of deployment categories, however.
"It makes the publishing of applications to the Internet safer."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot."
"The tech support we got from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager directly was pretty good."
"I think F5's tech support may be better than Citrix's because they mainly focus on the ADC product, but Citrix support covers Hypervisor, XenMobile, FAS, and ADC. And from my experience, sometimes, we face some issues that Citrix cannot handle."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"Initial setup is easy and pretty standard."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"The pricing is quite good."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"They need to develop the reporting tools further."
"I would like them to have more flexible models."
"There is a challenge in Pakistan. This is when there is a hardware failure. Sometimes, it takes more time to get a replacement because it is sent out from the U.S. or some other regional outpost. Thus, it takes two to three days to receive a replacement."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"The initial setup can take a long time."
"The initial setup can be complex - it's quite flexible in terms of configuration, but the person configuring it needs to understand the application side, the network side, and the server."
"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 40 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". 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". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, NGINX Plus, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and HAProxy, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.