We performed a comparison between Loadbalancer.org 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."With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"For now, it's stable."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement."
"If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"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."
"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."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 38 reviews. Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". 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". Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Kemp LoadMaster, 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 Loadbalancer.org 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.
