We recommend solutions to our customers based on their needs and budgets. Our initial assessment considers the type of company, the application's use case, and what features are needed within the solution or from a third party. 

Other products do not include all of the solution's features. 

Most people are moving from the solution to Azure's Front Door. 

We use the solution and Front Door. 

The features in both AWS and Azure seem to be comparable. We are enabling all the security features that were available in AWS. 

From my few months of experience with Azure, the configuration changes we are making in Application Gateway, such as a certificate change, are taking more time to apply to the service. In AWS it was very quick. It would take less than one minute, but here it takes almost 10 minutes to apply that certificate. That time difference is huge. That is the only drawback or issue that I have faced with the Azure Application Gateway. 

Other than that, the two services look the same.

My company had looked at the options offered by Cloudflare, but we decided to stick to the stack of services offered within Azure.

For most of our company's in-house resources, we are dependent on the cloud services offered by Microsoft, so it was easy to adopt Microsoft Azure Application Gateway in our organization.

We did not evaluate other options before selecting the Azure Application Gateway.

I'm looking into web application firewalls and comparing Cloudflare with Azure's firewall. We are currently using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and were considering the benefits and costs of upgrading to Cloudflare.

Because of our partnership with Microsoft we have an input Microsoft first policy. If none of their solutions are applicable or available, then we look to another solution, but that is not the case here.