We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"The product's performance should be better."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". 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". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.