We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, AWS WAF has a slight edge over Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. Our reviewers found Microsoft to have challenges with stability, scalability, and support.
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"The customizable features are good."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The solution is stable."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"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 could be easier to change servicing."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". 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". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our AWS WAF 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.