We performed a comparison between Citrix Web App and API Protection and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is good. If there is a problem, the load will be shifted to other sites automatically, which has been a good experience for us."
"We have good customer support."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The work balancing applications are the most valuable feature."
"The web application firewall which protects our services on the internet, and then of course services like our ability to provide high availability for the services we are offering are the most valuable features."
"Citrix is good for application protection."
"I like the solution's simplicity compared to Citrix's on-prem solutions."
"When our primary link goes down I can still get to my Cisco devices and the NetScaler devices on-prem because of the SDN solution. If the internet connection at one of the branches goes down, we can still route them, they still get internet based on the SDN solution through one of the other sites. They can carry on working."
"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 most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"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."
"Their upgrades are not very backward compatible, and sometimes they mess up."
"The reporting is not so good. They don't have an application to connect the logs."
"Citrix Web App and API Protection could improve in the area of licensing"
"The product could be improved by making it easier to use and easier to implement."
"The setup was not simple."
"The configuration for its web application firewall is complicated."
"The solution's pricing is a big concern and should be improved."
"I am not an expert in this solution, but simplicity and user-friendly interfaces are crucial for me. I would appreciate advice from Citrix, particularly in the form of an interactive guide for API protection. It would be helpful if they could provide specific points and recommendations for cybersecurity, indicating areas that need attention or improvement. I find such interactive guidance valuable."
"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."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"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 pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
More Citrix Web App and API Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix Web App and API Protection is ranked 20th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. Citrix Web App and API Protection is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Web App and API Protection writes "Affordable, provides advanced features, and protects applications". 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". Citrix Web App and API Protection is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, AWS WAF and Akamai App and API Protector, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Citrix Web App and API Protection 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.