This page has a price comparison:
http://www.dotcomsolution.com/activevfp.aspx
The other key differences are architecture(for performance and scalability) and ease of use. 'Ease of use' you probably can determine yourself by downloading the tools and trying them out. Architecture is how the web server communicates with VFP and how the tool accomodates simultaneous users. They can be divided into the following groups:

Foxweb and AFP - Named Pipes is used for communication (this is a type of inter-process communication similar to DDE). Multiple .EXE vfp servers are setup in the background to accomodate multiple simultaneous users. These 2 tools seem to concentrate on placing VFP code in HTML pages which are evaluated at runtime.

WestWind - uses 2 types of communication: text file based messaging (also called semaphores) used primarily for debugging and lowest in scalability and multiple COM .EXE servers for higher scalability. The COM .EXE servers are setup with DCOMCNFG. VFP application code can be placed in the VFP server or in HTML pages.

ActiveVFP - uses VFP COM mtdlls (multi-threaded dlls). This is the same technology that VFP web services use. Servers are instanciated as needed on new threads by new web requests. Threads are more light-weight than starting several separate vfp processes to run in the background and less configuration is needed. VFP application code can be placed in the VFP server or in HTML pages.

(ActiveVFP is available in the downloads section here on the UT - search on ActiveVFP.)


>Is there a page that describes the differences between the 2?