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

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle 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
20th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)
Microsoft Purview Data Life...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
32nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Governance (25th)
 

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 Data Lifecycle Management is 0.1%, down from 0.3% 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.
Al Mcpherson - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides clear visibility into our entire information estate, reduces our time to action, and saves us time
The integration across Azure is straightforward. Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management has been a game-changer for our data governance. We now have clear visibility into our entire information estate, allowing us to pinpoint data location and implement effective classification. Even though real-time compliance isn't a current need, Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management offers that capability for future requirements. Purview Data Lifecycle Management has reduced our time to action – since we previously lacked such a tool, it's effectively cut our response time in half. Purview Data Lifecycle Management has saved us one working day per month.

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's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"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."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The return on investment is good."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The UI is the most valuable feature."
"The automatic data labeling is compelling, and we are investigating its use."
"Purview's built-in functionality provides immediate access to reports, streamlining the entire process."
 

Cons

"From my point of view, there is no need for improvement."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"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."
"Microsoft's Purview Data Lifecycle Management preview features can be unreliable, hindering their usefulness."
"Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management can be challenging to implement due to its complexity and dense documentation, making it difficult to get started."
"Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management can be challenging to implement due to its complexity and dense documentation, making it difficult to get started."
 

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 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."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"The service operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, charging an extra one cent per field of metadata scanned in our data."
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%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management?
We opted for Purview Data Lifecycle Management due to its significant cost advantage over competitors. At a 95 percent price reduction, it was a clear winner. The service operates on a pay-as-you-g...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management?
Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management can be challenging to implement due to its complexity and dense documentation, making it difficult to get started.
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management?
We use Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management for labeling our data.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Information Governance
 

Overview

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