Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024
Kemp LoadMaster and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are both key players in the load balancing market, with Kemp LoadMaster having an advantage in pricing and support.
Features: Kemp LoadMaster offers ease of use with ready-made templates and stable deployment options, making it a practical choice for straightforward setups. Its geo-redundancy and capability to support crucial Microsoft applications like Exchange, Lync, and SharePoint are significant advantages. The integrated security features, including WAF and IPS, enhance its overall value. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's strengths lie in its cloud-native features, automatic scaling, and advanced WAF options, with seamless integration into other Microsoft services, making it suitable for Azure-centric businesses.
Room for Improvement: Kemp LoadMaster users suggest enhancements in its GUI, SNMP and RESTCONF management, and advanced logging features. There is also a call for more comprehensive documentation and broader support for business applications. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could benefit from improved configuration flexibility, scalability, and support for protocols beyond HTTP/HTTPS. Customers also seek more competitive pricing models, enhanced security features, and better integration with Service Mesh and Disaster Recovery options.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Kemp LoadMaster is known for providing reliable support with quick response times and is commonly used in on-premises and private cloud environments. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, being a primarily cloud-based solution, is best suited for public and hybrid cloud deployments, offering decent support but sometimes lacking the hands-on assistance available with Kemp.
Pricing and ROI: Kemp LoadMaster is celebrated for its competitive pricing, high ROI due to simplicity and stability, and accessible evaluation through free trials and flexible licensing. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's pay-as-you-go model can be cost-effective for scalable demands, but the varied pricing based on usage can lead to higher cumulative costs.
