We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and NGINX Plus 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."It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"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."
"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 solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"Supports IMAP, POP and SMTP protocols for the reverse proxy."
"This solution has everything."
"The web proxy and the database proxy are excellent."
"NGINX Plus also has NGINX App Protect. It's a separate module, which is inspired by the F5 apps."
"I find the solution’s community support and documentation most valuable. Compared to HAProxy, have found a lot of documentation and community support on Quora. If you would be asking me as a developer whether to choose this product, I would recommend this since it has good community support, documentation, and signature updates. The configuration of HAProxy is also very tedious. However, NGINX’s configuration is very simple."
"The most valuable features are the gateway and the ability to publish to sites."
"The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions."
"NGINX Plus' most valuable feature is the ingress controller."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"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."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"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 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."
"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 center management system could be improved."
"The KPI should be more focused on load balancing and the latency in application calling from the end system."
"It would be great if there was even more automation to make it even easier to maintain."
"I would like to see the Grafana integration in NGINX which is already present in HAProxy. Grafana integration will help the solution visualize all the data analytics on the dashboard which is currently not present."
"The scalability could be improved."
"The drawback is that you must obtain a license for everything."
"NGINX Plus is moderately priced, but it could give better value for money."
"NGINX is a very basic load balancer and cannot do as many customizations as F5."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 9 reviews while NGINX Plus is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 6.8, while NGINX Plus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX Plus writes "Quick installation and very easy to manage while doing orchestration or automation". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), F5 Advanced WAF and Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, whereas NGINX Plus is most compared with IIS, HAProxy, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and Apache Web Server. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. NGINX Plus 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.
