F5 Distributed Cloud Services vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway comparison

"The main benefit is Web App Security, offering a complete security package from DDoS to web application firewall, API protection, and bot mitigation."

"In a multi-cloud or distributed cloud, there are many protection possibilities from data to web application or API protection, including bot mitigation."

"F5 is known for being the best load balancer in the market. Customers with an existing module can easily adopt additional modules without investing in new hardware."

"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."

"The solution integrates different applications and APIs securely, enhancing overall security and network optimization."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."

"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."

"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."

"Microsoft has a vast variety of tools, and it blends very well."

"The solution is easy to set up."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway impacts our cost savings while maintaining higher performance."

"The main issue is integration with other parts or products of F5, like on-premise WAF. There are some problems, mainly from the perspective of implementation and customer expectations, which sometimes differ from reality."

"The main issue is integration with other parts or products of F5, like on-premise WAF."

"The pricing could be adjusted to better meet the needs of typical customers in regions like Poland, where the product is considered too expensive."

"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."

"Customer service can be improved. There is room for improvement, specifically in paid support, by providing more direct contact."

"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."

"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."

"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."

"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."

"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."

"The product's performance should be better."

"Regarding pricing for Azure Application Gateway, I would rate it at seven."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has less price than other application gateway solutions."

"The product is not expensive."

"It is not expensive."

"The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a pretty affordable product. My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. The additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution vary."

"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive."

"We use the tool's basic subscription. Its licensing costs are monthly."