Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Entra Permissions Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Web Application Firewall
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
22nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (12th)
Microsoft Entra Permissions...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
31st
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management (CIEM) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.9%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Entra Permissions Management is 0.6%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Microsoft Security Suite
 

Featured Reviews

Mano Senaratne - PeerSpot reviewer
Comprehensive suite simplifies configuration while frequent updates require management
Mainly, it comes with the complete suite of Microsoft services. I can use it in conjunction with the best options and other features that come with it. Configuration is much easier than using different platforms. For example, if I have hosted the application in AWS and am using the Application Firewall from Azure, there are certain additional steps to follow when configuring them. With Microsoft, everything is within a single suite, making it easier to configure and plan. Azure continually upgrades platforms and sends us messages to upgrade to the next version, simplifying the process. Later, it's much easier if I want to upgrade the software platform, scale it, or move it to a different application host as the whole suite comes together. The return on investment is good. If I am doing applications for clients, I can invoice them for better costs. Most applications that I run and use have a better return on investment.
Sameer Bhat - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides resource-based access and security, but time-bound access can be a problem
Entra ID is the core of the identity management that we have. This is the key product that we are using. I am currently also looking into Entra Private Access because we are planning to deploy about 50,000 desktops into Azure and use Azure Virtual Desktop. We would like to give access to the users from the desktop to on-premises applications. I learned that Entra Private Access is a good solution. That is not yet GA, but that is what we are looking for. Entra provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, but because our company also integrates with Nebula API, only administrators use Entra's pane. A normal person who wants to get onboarded can do self-service using Nebula. The features for whitelisting and other things are definitely there. That is what we use specifically. Application IDs, enterprise applications, and all those things are already there, so we have more efficiency. There is also security because we usually do not allow user identities to get direct access to Azure resources. Usually, we use the service principles from Entra ID, so this way, it increases security. Entra has helped to save time for our IT administrators. We tend to automate a lot of things. We can do automation using Graph APIs and save time. It is hard to quantify the time savings, but there has been a medium amount of time savings. Entra has helped to save our organization money. We care about security and risk more than money, but it also saves money. We are premium customers, and because we have a commit-to-consume contract with Microsoft of multi-million dollars, the money does not come into it because we have to consume those resources.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is almost impossible to access these assets from outside, requiring a very skilled attacker to obtain asset tokens of a customer using Azure."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The Microsoft support and the analytics are what I appreciate about Azure Web Application Firewall; it integrates effectively with things such as Sentinel and Defender for Cloud, so mostly it's the analytics and now the AI capabilities that have been introduced with Co-pilot."
"The return on investment is good."
"The best features of Azure Web Application Firewall are that it provides security and protection from poorly designed web applications."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"Multifactor authentication is valuable."
"The solution integrates well with our infrastructure and other systems without any issues."
 

Cons

"Upgrading the platform regularly is necessary for security, however, frequent updates every six months or year from Azure can be a maintenance overhead."
"Some Azure applications, like the web application firewall, require a certain level of SKU for hosting setup. The basic setup does not allow me to use the web application firewall and other additional services."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"The management can be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"The pricing needs improvement, and I think for beginners it will be a little bit complicated, so the ease of use could be enhanced."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The solution's pricing and support services need improvement."
"We use a third-party API called Nebula API to integrate the account for authorization. The time-bound access area in Entra can be a problem. It can be improved in terms of the granularity of the permissions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."
"The product cost is in the mid to high range."
"We are a Fortune 500 company, so we always negotiate with Microsoft."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?
As a technical professional, I am not aware of the exact price details, but I know that specific products are more costly than Azure or AWS WAF ( /products/aws-waf-reviews ).
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
Azure Web Application Firewall could improve in logging and troubleshooting processes by making them more streamlined and easier to manage.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Entra Permissions Management?
The product cost is in the mid to high range. You need to have a good budget to implement it, so it is considered fairly expensive for our market. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Entra Permissions Management?
The solution's pricing and support services need improvement.
 

Also Known As

No data available
CloudKnox Permissions Management
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Entra Permissions Management and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.