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

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Purview Insider Risk 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 Purview Insider R...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
29th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Insider Risk Management (1st)
 

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 Purview Insider Risk Management is 1.7%, up 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.
PR
Insightful detection and prevention of data loss mitigates legal risks and reduces potential lawsuits
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was helpful in performing investigations after alerts were received. I was able to quickly identify the source of issues, which was valuable for data loss prevention. Additionally, it has saved us money on lawsuits and the loss of important confidential information that could lead to legal issues.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best features of Azure Web Application Firewall are that it provides security and protection from poorly designed web applications."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"I can only strongly recommend using the Azure Web Application Firewall."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The best thing about Purview is that it's easy to integrate with our day-to-day environment. We have Active Directory, and Word and Excel. Using a third-party vendor and trying to integrate with our existing environment would be much more challenging."
"Insider Risk Management's graphing is highly specific and useful. You can see the last six months of data for the Microsoft tenant. You can easily find what you need. For example, you can filter for alerts about devices, emails, etc."
"Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was helpful in performing investigations after alerts were received."
 

Cons

"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The pricing needs improvement, and I think for beginners it will be a little bit complicated, so the ease of use could be enhanced."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"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."
"From my point of view, there is no need for improvement."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"The user interface also isn't user-friendly. When we introduce Insider Risk Management to our clients, they often find it difficult to understand. There is too much information, and the UI is not scalable. Also, entry-level IT technicians are not always interested in learning something new. It should be clearer and easier to understand."
"The reporting capabilities sometimes leave a little to be desired. It could be improved in terms of producing reports to provide information to the C-suite or others."
"For certain things, you need to install an agent. I understand it's for integrity, but if there could be a clientless solution for certain aspects, it would make life easier."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"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 price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"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."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
Information not available
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
35%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
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 needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management?
The reporting capabilities sometimes leave a little to be desired. It could be improved in terms of producing reports to provide information to the C-suite or others.
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management?
The primary use case for Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was data loss prevention. This was my main objective.
What advice do you have for others considering Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management?
I would recommend Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management to others. I would rate the overall solution as a nine.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Insider Risk Management
 

Overview

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