We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and F5 Advanced WAF 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."It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"It can scale."
"The solution uses AI to protect against botnet attacks."
"One of the most valuable features is the Local Traffic Manager."
"With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform."
"The solution isn't too expensive. The license allows you to license what you need and leave out what you don't need."
"The web application firewall itself is most valuable. It provides positive security and negative security. In negative security, it blocks a task such as cross-site scripting, code injection, etc. In positive security, it lets you specify and enforce things, such as the parameters allowed in username and password fields and the number of characters allowed in a field."
"The solution is easily accessible on mobile and laptop devices."
"The most valuable feature is that it is secure."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The management can be improved."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The administrator's user interface and some of the settings can sometimes be very complicated to understand."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"They should work on the virtualization of NGINX."
"The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use."
"While F5 Advanced WAF does limit the number of partners in certain regions to ensure successful business transactions, they could also benefit from expanding their partnerships and making it easier for more people to learn about and become experts in F5 Advanced WAF. By doing so, they could increase the reach and exposure of their solution, similar to how Cisco has become widely recognized in the security industry."
"The user interface (UI) seems a bit outdated. Making it more user-friendly would be beneficial."
"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."
"The overall price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Citrix Web App and API Protection. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. F5 Advanced WAF 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.
