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."We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature is WAF."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"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."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"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.
