We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It is a SaaS solution unlike much of the competition."
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"It is configurable via API."
"Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"The pricing is quite good."
"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 solution is easy to set up."
"It would be ideal if the solution offered better log integration and more integration with different platforms."
"The ModSecurity core rules need to be updated."
"Their documentation could be better. They don't have documentation that explains everything well. They have documentation for everything you're looking for, but they lack a single piece of documentation to tie everything together. As a new user or beginner, it took us a little bit of time to figure out how to put all these things in place."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"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."
"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."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."
"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."
"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
"Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
"It is not expensive."
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's intuitive dashboard enables users to build powerful rules through easy clicks and also provides Terraform integration. Every request to the WAF is inspected against the rule engine and the threat intelligence curated from protecting over 27 Million websites. Suspicious requests can be blocked, challenged or logged as per the needs of the user while legitimate requests are routed to the destination, agnostic of whether it lives on-premise or in the cloud. Analytics and Cloudflare Logs enable visibility into actionable metrics for the user.
Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.
To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is ranked 16th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall writes "A SaaS solution that is API configurable and a convenient part of a suite but needs updating of core rules". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is most compared with Azure Front Door, AWS WAF, Fastly, Signal Sciences and Indusface AppTrana, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), AWS WAF, Cloudflare and F5 Advanced WAF. See our Cloudflare 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.