We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."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."
"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 product's initial setup phase was easy."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"It collects the vulnerabilities on the hostnames and sends them to the Tenable.io cloud. Tenable has its own cloud where Tenable.io is running, but there are many connectors to other cloud solutions. Tenable can do vulnerability scanning for other cloud managers such as Azure, Amazon, and so on."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It is fully automated."
"We use the tool for our websites. We have a vulnerable subdomain. The tool helps to scan it for vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which provides a good level of detail with respect to vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable features of Tenable.io Web Application Scanning are the integration into specific use cases and scanning. All of the features of the solution are useful."
"We can get detailed information about vulnerabilities."
"The solution is stable."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"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."
"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"The solution's dashboards could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"It isn't easy to manage vulnerabilities in Tenable."
"The cloud and the on-premises versions have their own controllers, and there is no way to centrally manage controllers."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is not very user-friendly and you need a lot of information to get proper reports. The tool's support is not very responsive."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The technical support should be improved. Currently, some attacks are detected while others are not."
"The reporting has a very limited customization capability."
"They have a general dashboard for web application scanning, but the dashboards and reporting can be improved. They probably have some features in their roadmap."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable.io Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is ranked 24th in Application Security Tools with 14 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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 Tenable.io Web Application Scanning writes "Highly Recommended Solution with Latest Scanning Methods". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door, whereas Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is most compared with Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify on Demand and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
