We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Sucuri 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."Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"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 simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
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 Sucuri is ranked 21st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while Sucuri is rated 8.4. 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 Sucuri writes "Simple solution and good WAF". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Sucuri is most compared with Cloudflare, AWS WAF, SiteLock, Comodo cWatch and CDN77. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Sucuri 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.
