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) (13th)
Microsoft Purview Insider R...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
29th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Insider Risk Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.9%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management is 1.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Microsoft Security Suite Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Azure Web Application Firewall1.9%
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management1.9%
Other96.2%
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.
Karthik Ekambaram - PeerSpot reviewer
Have consistently built secure internal environments while implementing compliance tools for diverse customer needs
The customizable alerts system needs improvement. The detection rules are not extensive enough. There should be more possibilities for creating alerts based on additional criteria. While rules can be customized, the available criteria for creating detection rules should be expanded. Microsoft's pricing is very expensive. The Business Premium offering should be extended to enterprise customers, as it's currently limited to 300 users. There should be a tier below E5 that includes Microsoft Purview and other features. Currently, E5 licensing costs approximately 6,000 INR per user per month including taxes. Competitive solutions offer similar functionality at about 50% of Microsoft's cost. Email DLP is included in Business Premium or P1 licenses, while P2 licenses cover endpoint DLP and additional channels. Microsoft should introduce an intermediate tier below E5 that covers all P1 licenses, as customers often need coverage across the entire M365 suite.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"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 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."
"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."
"I can only strongly recommend using the Azure Web Application Firewall."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"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."
"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."
"The scoring mechanism is exceptional because it eliminates the need to reinvent criteria for identifying risks, misconfigurations, or vulnerabilities."
"Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was helpful in performing investigations after alerts were received."
 

Cons

"The knowledge base could be improved."
"The management can be improved."
"From my point of view, there is no need for improvement."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"I encountered difficulties with certificates for a Linux server when implementing protection. I had to create the entire chain, as I couldn't simply upload the certificate and the chain."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"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."
"Microsoft's pricing is very expensive. The Business Premium offering should be extended to enterprise customers, as it's currently limited to 300 users."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"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."
"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 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.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
37%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Large Enterprise12
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?
I would place Azure Web Application Firewall at an eight on a scale from one to 10, with one being cheap and 10 being expensive.
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
The pricing needs improvement, and I think for beginners it will be a little bit complicated, so the ease of use could be enhanced. I've worked with Fortinet and Cisco, and I think the UI is a litt...
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: September 2025.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.