We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall 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."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."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"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."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The management can be improved."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The product's performance should be better."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.