IT Central Station is now PeerSpot: Here's why

AWS WAF vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Executive Summary
Updated on April 3, 2022

We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.

  • Ease of Deployment: Users of AWS WAF find the setup somewhat complex. While some users of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway find the solution very easy to configure, others consider it complex because you need a specific format to configure it.

  • Features: Users of AWS say the most valuable feature is the access instruction feature. Other valuable features include flexibility in terms of WAF rules, scalability, and stability. Its being in the cloud is also a valuable feature because it doesn’t require investing in hardware resources. However, reviewers say it can be difficult to find the documentation for new features and to apply the right rules for the right security. Users also say that the UI could be improved.

    Microsoft Azure Application Gateway reviewers say the most valuable features are the WAF, the simplicity of the solution, and the easy integration with other software. It has good customization, reporting, and response to alerts. However, users would like to see better security and an improved UI. They also say it takes too long to update a certificate in the system, which affects the load balancing. Some users find there to be issues with the stability and scalability.
  • Pricing: Users of AWS WAF find the pricing model complex, although the price itself is quite affordable. Microsoft users say the pricing is affordable.
  • Service and Support: AWS WAF Users say the technical support does not respond quickly to bugs in the product’s coding. Also, the support for the free tier could be improved. Microsoft users feel support could be better.

Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, AWS WAF has a slight edge over Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. Our reviewers found Microsoft to have challenges with stability, scalability, and support.

To learn more, read our detailed AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report (Updated: July 2022).
Buyer's Guide
AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
July 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: July 2022.
610,336 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Their technical support has been quite good.""As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good.""Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward.""AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules.""Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources.""This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information.""This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it.""The solution is stable."

More AWS WAF Pros →

"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs.""The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on.""The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful.""The solution is easy to set up.""Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts.""It does an excellent job of load balancing.""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 is WAF."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pros →

Cons
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner.""We haven't faced any problems with the solution.""The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product.""When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them.""It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right.""The pricing model is complicated.""The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure.""I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."

More AWS WAF Cons →

"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS.""The security of the product could be adjusted.""The monitoring on the solution could be better.""The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway.""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 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.""Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM.""The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
  • "It has a variable pricing scheme."
  • "We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
  • "It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
  • "The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
  • "It's cheap."
  • "AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
  • "You need an additional AWS subscription for this product if you are buying a managed tool."
  • More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is not expensive."
  • "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."
  • "There is some additional cost, such as extended support."
  • "The cost is not an issue."
  • More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
    610,336 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud… more »
    Top Answer:Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for… more »
    Top Answer:Their technical support has been quite good.
    Top Answer:We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the… more »
    Top Answer:Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.
    Top Answer:Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year.
    Ranking
    Views
    17,208
    Comparisons
    14,335
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    551
    Rating
    7.6
    Views
    26,269
    Comparisons
    23,582
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    421
    Rating
    7.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    AWS Web Application Firewall
    Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
    Learn More
    Overview

    AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

    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.

    Offer
    Learn more about AWS WAF
    Learn more about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
    Sample Customers
    eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
    Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Energy/Utilities Company22%
    Media Company22%
    Transportation Company11%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Comms Service Provider18%
    Media Company9%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider33%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Healthcare Company11%
    Government11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company28%
    Comms Service Provider18%
    Financial Services Firm6%
    Energy/Utilities Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business26%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise48%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise66%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business44%
    Midsize Enterprise6%
    Large Enterprise50%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise18%
    Large Enterprise63%
    Buyer's Guide
    AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
    July 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: July 2022.
    610,336 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    AWS WAF is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 12 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 12 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Use this product to make it possible to deploy web applications securely". 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". AWS WAF is most compared with Imperva Web Application Firewall, Azure Web Application Firewall, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Azure Front Door and Akamai Kona Site Defender, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), F5 Advanced WAF, HAProxy and Cloudflare. See our AWS WAF 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.