We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Load Balancing 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 feature that I like the most is the scalability. The solutions I build often have many pieces, which are very complicated. If a client comes to me with a design, my developer has made this as a template or a cloud formation script. It's a design on paper, and I want it executed a certain way. I can do that quickly and repeatedly with AWS. That is a considerable advantage because I can take that template and do it five times in different zones. That is an excellent feature based on a template, et cetera."
"The solution offers good load balancing."
"It is straightforward to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scaling."
"Security and monitoring for high-performance applications are some of the top features."
"It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy."
"Amazon Elastic Load Balancing transfers the data securely from servers to users and splits the traffic based on peak times."
"It is a very scalable solution in which you can add more servers instantly."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"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."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"They should improve the solution's pricing."
"The reporting could be simplified so that the client sees a report of what they cached at the end of the month and the number of hits. It should have metrics above and beyond their Google analytics, etc. You can't do that with the solutions from AWS. You have to build sophisticated cloud trails, reports, dashboards, etc. The setup is significant, and it's hard to manage. You'll need to hire someone or pay a consultant on a regular basis to manage it, and it's not for the faint of heart."
"The solution needs to guarantee stability because multiple loads behind a load balancer can cause service unavailability."
"We faced some issues with the health check."
"The machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict."
"It would be good if we had a product that integrates well with third-party vendors. Some of our customers want a multi-cloud solution. They don't want to be tied up to or be in just one cloud."
"One issue that we faced with ALB was that leaf-level certificate validation was not happening. It is not that user-friendly in that aspect."
"The product's stability is an area with a slight shortcoming, which can be improved."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"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."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
More Amazon Elastic Load Balancing Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is ranked 11th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 9 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 40 reviews. Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing writes "A tool that offers its users resiliency, high availability, and a great scalability". 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". Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy and NGINX Plus, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and NGINX Plus. See our Amazon Elastic Load Balancing 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.