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

CloudConnexa vs Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

CloudConnexa
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
23rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
ZTNA as a Service (19th)
Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of CloudConnexa is 1.5%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is 4.2%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway4.2%
CloudConnexa1.5%
Other94.3%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

BS
Infrastructure Team Lead at Scalecomputing
Remote work has become simpler and cost-saving but reliability still needs consistent improvement
CloudConnexa can be improved, particularly because they have many features, but they do have stability issues. I see many times where the stability is not good, and I have seen a few outages with a huge ETA for those outages. It takes a while for them to give a proper ETA, and they often come up with workarounds that I need to run for a long time to address stability. For the log stream, they have a facility to forward logs, but they do not have a good dashboard to filter those logs in their dashboard itself, which for troubleshooting often contains meaningless information. The support is good, and they respond immediately, but the stability issues and the engineering work need to be improved. Stability and logging are the main areas that need improvement.
Srinivas A - PeerSpot reviewer
Director- Head of DevOps, security, and Complaince at Rightdata
Secure data links from on-premise sources have enabled private access to client databases
The best feature of Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is its sophisticated security mechanism for transmitting data between on-premise to Azure or Azure to Azure. The process of building the VPN gateway is user-friendly, making it easy to configure. Additionally, it supports various options to establish connections between on-premise to Azure or other sources to targets. Using pfSense as a firewall and VPN at our on-premise allows us to establish connections between Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and our on-premise pfSense VPN easily. This streamlined connection process occurs within a few steps. Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway has positively impacted our organization because it is core to our system and crucial for establishing private connections to our customer's data sources. Their databases lie in a private network with no communication with the outside world. Our customers trust Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, and by extension, trust us because of this efficient networking establishment process.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is very positive. The pricing is straightforward; it is the most affordable solution available."
"All of our offices are using Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway; the solution is scalable."
"I like the stability, HA, and performance of the product."
"What I like best about Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is that it's a managed VPN, so it's one of the most powerful VPNs I've ever found. It also provides point-to-site VPNs configurable within a few minutes."
"I rate the product ten out of ten."
"The Azure tool is useful and powerful and availability for clients. The updates are very good and reliable."
"The interoperability with various firewall and access gateway vendors is one of this solution's most valuable features."
"The VPN Gateway is valued for its ease of use and redundancy."
"The solution is user-friendly."
 

Cons

"CloudConnexa can be improved, particularly because they have many features, but they do have stability issues."
"The connectivity should be faster."
"The product must provide a single sign-on."
"There is a need to improve the paperwork and management approval process, which is currently painful, though not directly related to the VPN Gateway itself."
"My advice is to only use it if absolutely necessary. If you have the option, don't."
"VPN gateway works based on how you stabilize and work with it. It isn't stabilized on the first day, and you need to set up the channels properly and understand what bandwidths you're using."
"Make it completely routable, for example, if I have a gateway, I should be able to connect to whatever network I want on either side of the gateway, and the gateway should figure out which packet goes where."
"In the next release, Microsoft should add an option to schedule upgrades."
"Microsoft's support is rated at four due to issues such as speed of response and coordination difficulties."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The costs are quite high."
"It's saved us money compared to getting a third-party appliance."
"The solution is subscription-based and very cheap."
"The cost could be lower."
"Its price is reasonable for new technology."
"Payment for licensing the solution is part of the operating model. So, one needs to keep on paying while consuming the solution. In short, the payment is based on the solution's capacity."
"The software has good pricing compared to other vendors."
"The product costs us $140 to $180 per month."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
886,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Insurance Company
46%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise14
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudConnexa?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is very positive. The pricing is straightforward; it is the most affordable solution available. The setup is also simple, and we can do it imme...
What needs improvement with CloudConnexa?
CloudConnexa can be improved, particularly because they have many features, but they do have stability issues. I see many times where the stability is not good, and I have seen a few outages with a...
What is your primary use case for CloudConnexa?
My main use case for CloudConnexa is using the VPN solution, which is the primary VPN solution for our company. In my company, a lot of people are working remotely, so they need a VPN as the primar...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway?
The logging mechanism could use improvement. More detailed logging would help in troubleshooting any failures during connection establishment or monitoring Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway. Otherwise, e...
What advice do you have for others considering Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway?
For those considering using Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, read the documentation thoroughly. Create an Excel sheet outlining tasks for both the source and target sides, especially when establishing ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
MS Azure VPN Gateway
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenVPN, Fortinet, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN. Updated: April 2026.
886,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.