We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsoft Security Suite 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."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"I like the alert policies because they are quite robust. It has some built-in templates that we can easily pick up. One of them is the alert for mass downloads, when a particular user is running a massive download on your SharePoint site."
"The most valuable feature is its policy implementation."
"The ability to prevent users from using certain applications is one of the most valuable features. It doesn't require any configuration for implementation from the client perspective. It just works right away and gives you the information you need."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is to stop shadow IT."
"We have become more aware of what services our users are using, how often they are using them, and what data is being sent out of the organization and to which services. So, it is really a lot about visibility and helping us make decisions based on that. It drives some of our policy decisions for adding extra security controls."
"The solution does not affect a user's workflow."
"All of the features are valuable because all of the features are related."
"The feature that helps us in detecting the sensitive information being shared has been very useful. In addition, the feature that allows MCAS to apply policies with SharePoint, Teams, and OneDrive is being used predominantly."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"The management can be improved."
"There could be more granular roles that are out of the box included in the product."
"There are challenges with detection and there are challenges with false-positive rates."
"I would prefer to have filtering options incorporated within the policies, enabling the solution to perform tasks beyond mere blocking or allowing."
"The response time could be better. It will be helpful if the alerts are even more proactive and we can see more data. Currently, the data is a little bit weak. It is not complete. I can't just see it and completely know which user or which device it is. It takes some effort and time on my part to investigate and isolate a user. It would be great if it is more user-friendly or easy for people to understand."
"Defender could integrate better with multi-cloud and hybrid environments. It requires some additional configuration to ingest data from non-Azure environments and integrate it with Sentinel."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps' initial setup was quite technical but we were prepared. The time of the implementation depends on the job and how many users are being set up."
"It doesn't actually decrease the time to respond. This has been an issue with Microsoft recently. Sometimes, there is a delay when it comes to getting an alert policy email... Sometimes it takes two or three hours for that email to be sent."
"Generally, the pricing can always be improved along with the management system."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 18th in Microsoft Security Suite with 9 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is ranked 10th in Microsoft Security Suite with 30 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is rated 8.4. 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 Defender for Cloud Apps writes "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps report.
See our list of best Microsoft Security Suite vendors.
We monitor all Microsoft Security Suite 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.