We compared Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Azure Front Door based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Based on user reviews, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is praised for its load balancing capabilities, SSL termination, scalability, and integration with Azure services. Users value its ease of use, customization options, and positive ROI. On the other hand, Azure Front Door is appreciated for traffic management, security measures, scalability, and integration with Azure services. Users highlight its monitoring and analytics capabilities, performance improvement, and overall user experience. Areas for improvement include scalability, performance, user interface, and documentation for Azure Application Gateway, while Azure Front Door could focus on performance, stability, user-friendliness, error handling, customization, and security enhancements.
Features: Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is praised for its excellent load balancing capabilities, efficient SSL termination, and seamless integration. Azure Front Door is highly regarded for its traffic management, advanced security measures, scalability, and high availability. Additionally, it simplifies content delivery and offers robust monitoring and analytics capabilities.
Pricing and ROI: Based on user feedback, the setup cost for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is minimal, while Azure Front Door's setup cost is not explicitly mentioned. The pricing for Application Gateway is considered fair, but there is no information regarding Front Door's pricing., In terms of ROI, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway delivers positive returns with its efficient and reliable performance, cost-effectiveness, scalability, and user-friendly management. On the other hand, Azure Front Door offers a positive ROI through its effective traffic distribution, enhanced website performance, scalability, cost-effectiveness, and seamless integration with other Azure services.
Room for Improvement: Some areas of improvement for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway include enhancing scalability and performance capabilities, improving the user interface and documentation, and providing better support resources. On the other hand, Azure Front Door could benefit from enhancing performance and stability, refining the configuration process to be more user-friendly, improving error handling and troubleshooting capabilities, increasing customization options, and addressing security concerns.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway highlight varying durations for deployment and setup, ranging from a week to three months. On the other hand, Azure Front Door also has mixed feedback, with some users taking a week for both deployment and setup, and others requiring three months and a week., Users have praised the customer service and support provided by both Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Azure Front Door. Azure Application Gateway's support is described as top-notch, reliable, and efficient. Azure Front Door's support team is commended for their prompt response and willingness to address queries.
The summary above is based on 26 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Azure Front Door users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"The solution is good."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"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 solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"The product's performance should be better."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"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 does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". 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". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Akamai, AWS Global Accelerator and Azure Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our Azure Front Door vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.