We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon, Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"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."
"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."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"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."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"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."
"The area that should be improved is licensing."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is ranked 27th in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is rated 9.0. 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 R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) writes "Geo-localization and IP reputation help to keep our clients secure and more available". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and AWS WAF, whereas R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai App and API Protector.
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.