We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Sucuri 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 solution is easy to set up."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The product's performance should be better."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"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."
"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."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews while Sucuri is ranked 21st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while Sucuri is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sucuri writes "Simple solution and good WAF". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door, whereas Sucuri is most compared with Cloudflare, AWS WAF, SiteLock, Comodo cWatch and StackPath WAF. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Sucuri 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.