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."The features I find valuable in this solution are the ease of managing the logs on the WAFs, the ease to identify break-in attempts into the network, the front-end firewall, and a more specific firewall."
"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."
"For now, it's stable."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us, to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
"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."
"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 could be easier to change servicing."
"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."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
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.