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."The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"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."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"The product's performance should be better."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."
"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."
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 38 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, Azure Front Door, F5 Advanced WAF 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.
