We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsoft Security Suite 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."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"Defender lets you orchestrate the roll-out from a single pane. Using the Azure portal, you can roll it out over all the servers covered by the entire subscription."
"Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."
"Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The management can be improved."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"The initial setup is not actually so complex but it feels complex because there are many add-ons. There are many options and my team needs to be aware of all of these changes happening on the backend which is a distraction."
"Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 19th in Microsoft Security Suite with 9 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Microsoft Security Suite with 46 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. 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 Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Microsoft Security Suite vendors.
We monitor all Microsoft Security Suite 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.
