We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"A lot of our SSL management is done on the front-end side, so there is one pane of glass for a lot of our security certificates. It gives us visibility. It also falls under when certificates are going to expire. Even for servers that are coming down, we can see how that affects the traffic flow by using the services map."
"Compared to F5, which I used about six years ago, the A10 is much easier when routing. You don't have to use the wildcard bits to route it between the different segments. It's much less troublesome to configure."
"It helps with the efficiency of application deployments and data security."
"The SLB and GSLB load balancing are the most valuable features. They meet our need to do server-side load balancing and global site load balancing so we can distribute traffic, not only intra-data center, but inter-data center."
"The ADCs are pretty straightforward and easy to use. There is a GUI base where you can go in and see everything, but they also have a CLI base where you can use a command and get the information that you want, very fast."
"The solution is user-friendly and the CLA troubleshooting is easier compared to other solutions."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"There is room for improvement in the upgrading process. Sometimes we have to contact A10 for verification of some stuff."
"The interface and integrated custom applications can be a bit difficult."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers."
"There are competitors that have more features."
"In my opinion, they need to improve their cloud support. There is support for cloud, but not all functions are there, such as high-availability."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"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."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"We did try out the solution’s Harmony analytics and visibility controller for its one-year trial. Due to the cost, we chose not to keep it onsite."
"As for the initial investment in the hardware, F5 and A10 are quite similar now. For the current A10 solution, the initial cost was about $36,000. As for annual support, the F5 solution would be between $10,000 and $12,000, while the A10 is $2,200 a year for support."
"Pricing is one of the features of the product that influence customers to use the product."
"The price is good they are very comparative."
"We just pay for support in addition to our licensing."
"The price of the maintenance support is too expensive."
"You get a lot more for your dollar with A10."
"It is not expensive."
"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
"Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
A10 Networks' application networking, load balancing and DDoS protection solutions accelerate and secure data center applications and networks of thousands of the world's largest enterprises, service providers, and hyper scale web providers.
Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.
To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 5th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 7 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 11 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix ADC, Kemp LoadMaster, Radware Alteon and A10 Networks Lightning ADC, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), AWS WAF, Cloudflare and F5 Advanced WAF. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC 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.