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 solution is robust and reliable."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"In terms of stability, it is stable."
"In my team, we work in a very agile environment and the solutions from BIG-IP, including BIG-IP WAF, suit us well when developing and serving our applications."
"The most valuable features are DNS, APM, and ASM. Additionally, it is easy to use and you have a lot of flexibility to use the solution within a network."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"The most valuable feature is the proxy."
"It is an easy way to build application policies (graphical)."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The pricing is quite good."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The user interface of F5 BIG-IP LTM is old and could improve."
"Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"Security enhancement should be more user friendly."
"We would like to have integration into encryption and PKI integration with SafeNet. That is probably the key component in using External PKIs, letting people bring their PKIs with them."
"Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing."
"The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization. It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management."
"I'm not very sure about the security with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have our own private data center, but we are going to migrate our private data center into the Azure cloud environment. Security will then be a major concern when we migrate our own whole infrastructure to the public cloud."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
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 40 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 AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door 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.
