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."I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling."
"The solution offers better data protection than competitors."
"Capture ATP is a good additional feature in the latest version."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"The product's performance should be better."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"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."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS."
"The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."
"We have a lot of unknown errors popping up in the latest version."
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 41 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 F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door, 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.
