"The DDoS protection is the most valuable aspect of the solution."
"It's very user-friendly."
"New and innovative way to protect the client's data."
"From what I've seen so far, there are no negatives to report as of yet"
"There are key things that are used for our enterprise customers, such as Lambda and DNS."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The solution could work at being less expensive. It costs a lot to use it."
"Latencies are always a problem."
"There are some issues with the CDN services."
"Technical support is lacking."
"Although I think it's quite good, it doesn't provide me with all the features I would expect to have if I were using Imperva."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cloudflare is ranked 3rd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 6 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 12 reviews. Cloudflare is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Cloudflare writes "Robust, secure and innovative; technical support needs to be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". Cloudflare is most compared with Imperva DDoS, Azure Front Door, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Arbor DDoS and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), F5 Advanced WAF and Citrix ADC. See our Cloudflare vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
