We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced 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 of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, F5 Advanced WAF seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers find that the questions concerning Microsoft Azure Application Gateway’s stability and scalability make it a riskier investment than F5 Advanced WAF.
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"One of the most valuable features is the Local Traffic Manager."
"It's flexible and powerful, and the users can input their own rules to the system."
"It's scalable and very easy to manage."
"The initial setup was was easy to install."
"I like the security features, especially against SQL injection."
"F5 Advanced WAF helps our engineers to learn the complete configuration, including fundamental and advanced policies."
"Provides good protection from attacks."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"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."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The BNS module needs improvement."
"I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF."
"The solution should include protection against web page attacks like what is available in FortiWeb."
"The reporting portion of F5 Advance WAF is not great. They need to work out something better, as it is very basic. You only see the top IPs, I think there is more they can offer."
"You have to buy another module with an extra license, to have the authentication feature."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"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."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". 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 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, Azure Front Door, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our F5 Advanced 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.
