We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) 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 solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"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 can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to set up the rules easily."
"When configuring a web application firewall using Signal Sciences, we configure a rule whereby no one except a few people can access the application."
"Fastly (Signal Sciences) integrates and tags the intermittent traffic based on patterns. It generates signals and provides them in a dashboard where we can view them and decide whether to allow or deny traffic. It's a more advanced and easy-to-navigate dashboard."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pros →
"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."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"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."
"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 is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"The areas that could be improved in Signal Sciences include the effectiveness of rules, as many didn't function optimally and required custom rule-writing to address bypasses for WAF."
"Fastly don't support caching for China users. That's the only feature lacking compared to Akamai."
"Even if we create some custom rules, Signal Sciences cannot capture some of the malicious traffic."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Cons →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is ranked 28th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is rated 7.6. 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 The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) writes "Offers Varnish Configuration Language (VCL) and provides enhanced dashboards, making it easy to identify and allow or deny traffic based on the signals it provides". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is most compared with AWS WAF, Cloudflare, Azure Web Application Firewall, Akamai App and API Protector and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) 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.
