We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."The solution has good dashboards."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"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."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"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."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"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."
"The management can be improved."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"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."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and AWS WAF. See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.