We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, F5 Advanced WAF seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers find that the questions concerning Microsoft Azure Application Gateway’s stability and scalability make it a riskier investment than F5 Advanced WAF.
"One of the most valuable features is the Local Traffic Manager."
"It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements."
"The best solution for WAF."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the easy identification of events and customization. We can pinpoint our settings."
"Very easy to implement and works well."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the security features and the protection."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to have a pool of resources that can distribute your traffic, and that is a plus for me. My company tried to look into a competitor, Imperva, but it was lacking that capability, so F5 Advanced WAF outperforms Imperva."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the WAF protection, Data Safe, and the seven-layer DDoS."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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 product's initial setup phase was easy."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"F5 Advanced needs to improve its bot protection. The solution needs to have machine learning to learn the behavior of the customer to recognize the human versus the bot. This is a difficult feature to explain to our customers. I would like documentation about the bot feature to make it easier for the customer to understand."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"The solution should include protection against web page attacks like what is available in FortiWeb."
"Its price should be better. It is expensive."
"This solution can be made more user-friendly."
"It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use."
"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."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, Azure Front Door, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.
