We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC 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."I like the solution's load balance with DNS intelligence."
"It's a good product because it supports all the features that ADC solutions in the market can support, like F5 solutions, for example, such as the LTM of F5."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"Because ADC is the intermediary between the servers and the end-user application, it gives thorough information about the traffic, what the problem is."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading capacity."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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."
"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 solution is easy to set up."
"The product’s price could be reduced. Also, some of its features need to be more advanced."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
"The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"I think it would be helpful if Fortinet put more video examples on their cookbook site."
"The configuration is relatively complex."
"I had a terrible experience with Fortinet support. I only used support once when I bought the solution. I got no response for two days. However, I believe that it's no longer the case. Fortinet solutions have problems when they're launched. For example, we had issues with Fortinet's authenticator when it came out. We also had trouble with FortiNAC in the beginning."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"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."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 38 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". 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". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster and HAProxy, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Fortinet FortiADC 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.
