We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Sucuri 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 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 production is a valuable feature."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"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."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews while Sucuri is ranked 21st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while Sucuri is rated 8.4. 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 Sucuri writes "Simple solution and good WAF". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door, whereas Sucuri is most compared with Cloudflare, AWS WAF, SiteLock, Comodo cWatch and StackPath WAF. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Sucuri 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.
