AWS WAF vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Logo
17,303 views|13,553 comparisons
82% willing to recommend
Microsoft Logo
14,238 views|12,302 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary
Updated on Apr 3, 2022

We performed a comparison between AWS 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.

  • Ease of Deployment: Users of AWS WAF find the setup somewhat complex. While some users of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway find the solution very easy to configure, others consider it complex because you need a specific format to configure it.

  • Features: Users of AWS say the most valuable feature is the access instruction feature. Other valuable features include flexibility in terms of WAF rules, scalability, and stability. Its being in the cloud is also a valuable feature because it doesn’t require investing in hardware resources. However, reviewers say it can be difficult to find the documentation for new features and to apply the right rules for the right security. Users also say that the UI could be improved.

    Microsoft Azure Application Gateway reviewers say the most valuable features are the WAF, the simplicity of the solution, and the easy integration with other software. It has good customization, reporting, and response to alerts. However, users would like to see better security and an improved UI. They also say it takes too long to update a certificate in the system, which affects the load balancing. Some users find there to be issues with the stability and scalability.
  • Pricing: Users of AWS WAF find the pricing model complex, although the price itself is quite affordable. Microsoft users say the pricing is affordable.
  • Service and Support: AWS WAF Users say the technical support does not respond quickly to bugs in the product’s coding. Also, the support for the free tier could be improved. Microsoft users feel support could be better.

Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, AWS WAF has a slight edge over Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. Our reviewers found Microsoft to have challenges with stability, scalability, and support.

To learn more, read our detailed AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Report (Updated: March 2024).
769,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours.""The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.""The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements.""We can host any DB or application on the solution.""Rule groups are valuable.""AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers.""The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,""It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."

More AWS WAF Pros →

"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure.""Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable.""The production is a valuable feature.""The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management.""WAF feature replicates the firewall.""The most valuable feature is WAF.""We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly.""Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pros →

Cons
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement.""The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.""The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure.""I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services.""The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure.""I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps.""On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner.""In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."

More AWS WAF Cons →

"The security of the product could be adjusted.""There is room for improvement in the pricing model.""The working speed of the solution needs improvement.""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 solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates.""The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive.""The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules.""Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It's an annual subscription."
  • "There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
  • "There are different scale options available for WAF."
  • "AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
  • "It has a variable pricing scheme."
  • "We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
  • "It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
  • "The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
  • More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is not expensive."
  • "Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
  • "Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
  • "There is some additional cost, such as extended support."
  • "The cost is not an issue."
  • "The solution is reasonably priced compared to other solutions."
  • "The pricing is based on how much you use the solution."
  • "The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."
  • More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
    769,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Hi Varun I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF… more »
    Top Answer:Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for… more »
    Top Answer:We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the… more »
    Top Answer:I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily.
    Top Answer:The solution is cheaper than Imperva. I rate it four to five out of ten.
    Ranking
    Views
    17,303
    Comparisons
    13,553
    Reviews
    30
    Average Words per Review
    415
    Rating
    8.4
    Views
    14,238
    Comparisons
    12,302
    Reviews
    23
    Average Words per Review
    363
    Rating
    7.3
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    AWS Web Application Firewall
    Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
    Learn More
    Overview

    AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) is a firewall security system that monitors incoming and outgoing traffic for applications and websites based on your pre-defined web security rules. AWS WAF defends applications and websites from common Web attacks that could otherwise damage application performance and availability and compromise security.

    You can create rules in AWS WAF that can include blocking specific HTTP headers, IP addresses, and URI strings. These rules prevent common web exploits, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. Once defined, new rules are deployed within seconds, and can easily be tracked so you can monitor their effectiveness via real-time insights. These saved metrics include URIs, IP addresses, and geo locations for each request.

    AWS WAF Features

    Some of the solution's top features include:

    • Web traffic filtering: Get an extra layer of security by creating a centralized set of rules, easily deployable across multiple websites. These rules filter out web traffic based on conditions like HTTP headers, URIs, and IP addresses. This is very helpful for protection against exploits such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting as well as attacks from third-party applications.
    • Bot control: Malicious bot traffic can consume excessive resources and cause downtime. Gain visibility and control over bot traffic with a managed rule group. You can easily block harmful bots, such as scrapers and crawlers, and you can allow common bots, like search engines and status monitors.
    • Fraud prevention: Effectively defend your application against bot attacks by monitoring your application’s login page with a managed rule group that prevents hackers from accessing user accounts using compromised credentials. The managed rule group helps protect against credential stuffing attacks, brute-force login attempts, and other harmful login activities.
    • API for AWS WAF Management: Automatically create and maintain rules and integrate them into your development process.
    • Metrics for real-time visibility: Receive real-time metrics and captures of raw requests with details about geo-locations, IP addresses, URIs, user agents, and referrers. Integrate seamlessly with Amazon CloudWatch to set up custom alarms when events or attacks occur. These metrics provide valuable data intelligence that can be used to create new rules that significantly improve your application protections.
    • Firewall management: AWS Firewall Manager automatically scans and notifies the security team when there is a policy violation, so they can swiftly take action. When new resources are created, your security team can guarantee that they comply with your organization’s security rules.

    Reviews from Real Users

    AWS WAF stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its user-friendly interface and its integration capabilities.

    Kavin K., a security analyst at M2P Fintech, writes, “I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through.”

    Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.

    To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.

    Sample Customers
    eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
    Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Media Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company31%
    Comms Service Provider19%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Government7%
    Manufacturing Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business37%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise64%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business39%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise49%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise64%
    Buyer's Guide
    AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    769,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". 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". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Azure Front Door, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our AWS 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.