Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Sucuri comparison

"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."

"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."

"The pricing is quite good."

"The solution's integration is very good."

"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."

"The product's initial setup phase was easy."

"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 most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."

"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."

"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."

"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 very easy."

"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."

"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."

"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."

"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."

"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."

"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."

"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."

"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."

"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."

"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."

"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."

"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."

"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."

"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."

"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."

"I rate the price of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight out of ten."

"It is an expensive solution. We have an enterprise agreement, it is monthly."

"The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go."

"The pricing is based on how much you use the solution."

"The solution is cheaper than Imperva. I rate it four to five out of ten."

"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."

"The cost is not an issue."

"The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten."

"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."

"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."

"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."

"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."