We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsoft Security Suite solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"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."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"The vulnerability reporting is helpful. When we initially deployed Defender, it reported many more threats than we currently see. It gave us insight into areas we had not previously considered, so we knew where we needed to act."
"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."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"The management can be improved."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"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."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"Another thing is that Defender for Cloud uses more resources than CrowdStrike, which my current company uses. Defender for Cloud has two or three processes running simultaneously that consume memory and processor time. I had the chance to compare that with CrowdStrike a few days ago, which was significantly less. It would be nice if Defender were a little lighter. It's a relatively large installation that consumes more resources than competitors do."
"Microsoft sources most of their threat intelligence internally, but I think they should open themselves up to bodies that provide feel intelligence to build a better engine. There may be threats out there that they don't report because their team is not doing anything on that and they don't have arrangements with another party that is involved in that research."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 19th in Microsoft Security Suite with 9 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Microsoft Security Suite with 46 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. 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 Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Microsoft Security Suite vendors.
We monitor all Microsoft Security Suite 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.
