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

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Purview Audit 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
20th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)
Microsoft Purview Audit
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
31st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (43rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.9%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Audit is 0.6%, up from 0.4% 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.
Nagendra Nekkala - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables us to create a user in the cloud and give them access to resources through a single workflow
The PAM for Active Directory is good. ActiveOps is quite useful as a feature. The One Identity active role enables us to create a user in the cloud and give them access to resources through a single workflow. We can create rules-based access. It helps us control audit management and IT access management. We can decide what people can access and detect job functions. It enables zero trust security with hybrid AD, find delegation, and role-based access control. It provides all certificates and provides secure authentication, call-based access control, et cetera. It's really important for my critical applications. We can see who's using what, whether they are authorized, and other information to decide what access to offer. With the active role console, I can find out the obvious issues and also perform a decent setup. The One Identity active roles enable us to reduce password reset times. We can handle tasks in a matter of a minute. It simplifies AD and Azure AD management, efficiency, and security overall. The password manager is very secure and is a self-service password manager solution. It is considerably decreasing my help desk tasks. Our engineering users can reset forgotten passwords, and it can implement a stronger password. The management around access to enterprise resources keeps my data and systems secure. We're easily saving at least one hour per day using this solution. The migration from AD to Azure AD is very easy. There are simple configurations, and the migration goes rather smoothly. We use the solution support for SaaS apps through Cloud Delivered SCIM connectors. There are controls that can be configured and we can add and set permissions easily.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Azure Web Application Firewall is its ability to filter requests and block false positives by using custom rules and the OWASP rule set."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"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 solution has good dashboards."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"We're easily saving at least one hour per day using this solution."
"The platform has significantly enhanced our operational insight into the overall Microsoft 365 environment."
 

Cons

"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."
"From my point of view, there is no need for improvement."
"The knowledge base could be improved."
"The management can be improved."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"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."
"Areas for product improvement include enhancing customization options and integrating more comprehensive compliance features."
"We do have a Denial of Access happening."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
13%
Educational Organization
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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?
The pricing is okay at the moment. Sometimes, when opting for a higher SKU, it's not the WAF itself that's costly but the additional requirements. A higher SKU application hosting platform adds to ...
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
While using it, I identified certain areas where it would have been good to have additional features. Right now, I can't recall any specific instances. Seamless integration is good, yet having mult...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Audit?
Areas for product improvement include enhancing customization options and integrating more comprehensive compliance features.
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview Audit?
We utilize Microsoft Purview Audit for monitoring security and compliance aspects.
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Purview Audit and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.