We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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."Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"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."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"The pricing is quite good."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution offers better data protection than competitors."
"Capture ATP is a good additional feature in the latest version."
"We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS."
"We have a lot of unknown errors popping up in the latest version."
"The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More SonicWall Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is ranked 25th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is rated 9.0. 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 SonicWall Web Application Firewall writes "A stable and durable solution that can be used for security and tunneling". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas SonicWall Web Application Firewall is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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.