We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Identity 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 most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"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."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Defender for Identity has not affected the end-user experience."
"This solution has advanced a lot over the last few years."
"One of our users had the same password for every personal and company account. That was a problem because she started receiving phishing emails that could compromise all of her accounts. Defender told us that the user was not changing their password."
"All the integration it has with different Microsoft packages, like Teams and Office, is good."
"It is easy to set up. Based on the number of devices you would like to set up, you can use scripts, Group Policy, etc. It takes five minutes to set up."
"The solution offers excellent visibility into threats."
"It automates routine testing and helps automate the finding of high-value alerts."
"The most valuable aspect is its connection to Microsoft Sentinel and Defender for Endpoint, and giving exact timelines for incidents and when certain events occured during an incident."
"The management can be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"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."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"An area for improvement is the administrative interface. It's basic compared to other administrative centers. They could make it more user-friendly and easier to navigate."
"There is no option to remedy an issue directly from the console. If we see an alert, we can't fix it from the console. Instead, we must depend on other Microsoft products, such as MDE. That is a significant drawback. It simply works as a scanner, which can sometimes put enough load on the sensors. Immediate actions should be possible from the dashboard because. It can prevent issues from spreading further."
"Defender for Identity gives us visibility, but we often get false positives from Azure that take us down the garden path. We go through 30 incidents each day and most of those are false positives or benign positive alerts. Occasionally, we get true positive alerts."
"The solution could be better at using group-managed access and they could replace it with broad-based access controls."
"One potential area for improvement could be exploring flexibility in the installation of Microsoft Defender for Identity agents."
"The tracking instance needs to be configured appropriately."
"We observe a lot of false positives. Sometimes, when we go for a coffee break, we lock our screens. Locking the screen has a separate Windows event ID and sometimes I see it is detected as a failed login."
"The technical support needs significant improvement. Documentation for more minor issues in the form of guides or walkthroughs could help to resolve this issue. The number of tickets raised would decrease, removing some pressure from the support team and making it easier to clear the remaining tickets."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Identity Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 19th in Microsoft Security Suite with 9 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Identity is ranked 8th in Microsoft Security Suite with 13 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Identity is rated 9.0. 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 Identity writes "Offers robust protection from insider threats, but the customer support is poor". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas Microsoft Defender for Identity is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID Protection, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Microsoft Entra Verified ID, Splunk User Behavior Analytics and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender for Identity 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.
