No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Sucuri comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

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 Web Application Firewall (WAF)
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (19th)
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
36th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (25th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.8%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 1.6%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Azure Web Application Firewall1.8%
Sucuri1.6%
Other96.6%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

RJ
Global IT Solutions Specialist at RELIEF INTERNATIONAL INC
Offers robust analytics and seamless cloud integration with minor room for user interface improvement
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. It helps when looking for threats. It reduces issues significantly because the filtering capabilities are high. Given that it's a cloud solution, we have very minimal downtime, especially because we have Microsoft support. On a scale of one to 10, I would give it an eight.
JS
Hardware Engineer at Ministry of Defense
A cost-effective choice for website security and informative support with issues related to CDN quality
One area where they could improve is in providing real-time support options because now you need to open a support ticket and wait for their response. It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance. I have found their Content Delivery Network service to be lacking in quality, and it could certainly be enhanced to provide better performance. I would also like to see improvements in the deployment process, as it currently takes more time than desirable. Another significant concern is that their service when your website is down, turns it into a static site. This means that if customers try to visit your site during downtime, they will see old content from the static site, which is not ideal. The CDN and tracking services are areas that need improvement, as well as addressing their bandwidth limitations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"The best features of Azure Web Application Firewall are that it provides security and protection from poorly designed web applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"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."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"For people who own a personal website, this solution is worth trying out since their security solution is somewhat full-fledged."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"Rather than locate some things manually, the Sucuri plugin scans and allows us to pinpoint whether there is malware or some problem in the site."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The initial setup was very easy."
 

Cons

"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"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."
"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."
"Microsoft technical support for Azure Web Application Firewall has presented challenges. When working on Azure Firewall, understanding requirements was difficult because support teams often passed issues from one to another without addressing requirements accurately."
"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."
"Upgrading the platform regularly is necessary for security, however, frequent updates every six months or year from Azure can be a maintenance overhead."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
 

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."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"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."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Construction Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
 

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 is your primary use case for Azure Web Application Firewall?
Because we mostly operate in the cloud and because we're a Microsoft environment, it was the best option in the scenario. The options were limited in terms of wanting to be an only Microsoft enviro...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.