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."The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"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."
"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 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."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"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 security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"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."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"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."
"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 tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"Microsoft needs to work on their documentation."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
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 41 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 A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. 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.