We performed a comparison between Citrix Web App and API Protection 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."I like the solution's simplicity compared to Citrix's on-prem solutions."
"The work balancing applications are the most valuable feature."
"The advantage of Citrix Web App and API Protection is just its graphic user interface for beginners. The solution is nothing special, but we have to use it for the corporation. Another advantage of Citrix Web App and API Protection is that we have our copy to test things and get the know-how of it."
"The stability is good. If there is a problem, the load will be shifted to other sites automatically, which has been a good experience for us."
"When our primary link goes down I can still get to my Cisco devices and the NetScaler devices on-prem because of the SDN solution. If the internet connection at one of the branches goes down, we can still route them, they still get internet based on the SDN solution through one of the other sites. They can carry on working."
"I prefer this solution because of its user-friendly interface. I find it simple and close to what I am currently using, which is Citrix Fortiva Access for Multi-Factor Authentication. I appreciate the familiar user interface and troubleshooting tools it offers."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"Citrix Web App API Protection allows you to enable a blocking mode"
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"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."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The reporting is not so good. They don't have an application to connect the logs."
"Their upgrades are not very backward compatible, and sometimes they mess up."
"The product could be improved by making it easier to use and easier to implement."
"The solution's pricing is a big concern and should be improved."
"I am not an expert in this solution, but simplicity and user-friendly interfaces are crucial for me. I would appreciate advice from Citrix, particularly in the form of an interactive guide for API protection. It would be helpful if they could provide specific points and recommendations for cybersecurity, indicating areas that need attention or improvement. I find such interactive guidance valuable."
"Security could be improved because then I can get rid of my Cisco firewalls. If they improve the security then I could run my security, my proxy, my firewalling and my SDN solution on one device instead of having to have multiple devices."
"Citrix Web App and API Protection could improve in the area of licensing"
"The user interface could be more friendly. Some wizards and other documentation for administrators, as well as some use cases, helps us to understand the solution."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"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."
More Citrix Web App and API Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix Web App and API Protection is ranked 20th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Citrix Web App and API Protection is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Web App and API Protection writes "Has a good graphic user interface for beginners, but lacks real-time notifications, alerts, and artificial intelligence". 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". Citrix Web App and API Protection is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door, Fortinet FortiWeb, AWS WAF and Akamai App and API Protector, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Citrix Web App and API Protection 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.