We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: F5 BIG-IP comes out on top in this comparison. It is powerful and flexible with a proven ROI. Azure Application Gateway does come out on top in the pricing and ease of deployment categories, however.
"The setup is pretty easy."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"Valuable features include Link Controller and Server Load Balancer."
"F5 Big-IP Local Traffic Manager has better modular features especially LTM, which according to the clients, is very beneficial. Most of the users opt for a combination of big IP LTM and WAF which helps them to leverage application load balancing and enhance application security many-fold."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"F5 has many capabilities for load balancing and web application firewall features."
"I have Big-IP change and control manager, which give me the roll back option. Therefore, I can view the last things which happened on the device."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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's integration is very good."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"Improvements should enable customers to build a tailor-made solution in the future through a service portal."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved."
"I used GitHub for autoscaling CloudFormation, and I found two bugs and I submitted them. Their implementation in GitHub could be cleaner and allow for a bit more customization."
"The product is expensive."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface."
"Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"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."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"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."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". 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". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, NGINX Plus, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and HAProxy, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.