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

Huawei Cloud WAF vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

Huawei Cloud WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
42nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Azure Application...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
10th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Huawei Cloud WAF is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is 2.8%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway2.8%
Huawei Cloud WAF0.7%
Other96.5%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Chinedu Omenogor - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Operations Engineer at Galaxy Backbone Ltd
Easy to use, but its feature set could be expanded to mirror what currently exists on the public cloud
We have a private cloud leveraging Huawei technology. We use Huawei Cloud WAF to provide cloud services for governments, ministries, departments, and some private sector organizations The most valuable feature of Huawei Cloud WAF is its ease of use. It would be good if the solution's feature set…
SS
Cloud Specialist at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Mutual TLS has secured our web services and now needs broader protocol support
The most valuable feature we have found in Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is mutual TLS. We find mutual TLS valuable because we can verify the client securely by setting up the trust certificate of the client, and also if we do it at the client side as well. This successfully develops mutual trust, ensuring that we know the client who is calling our service is a legitimate client. That is a very nice feature.Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has helped manage our traffic efficiently because we have many web services that we can put behind the same URL, and we can have different URLs with the same Application Gateway with a limited number of listeners. We can do host-based routing as well as URL-based routing or path-based routing. It supports both, so we can have even a single URL supporting many applications, or we can have different URLs for different applications respectively. We have both use cases.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Huawei Cloud WAF is its ease of use."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The Azure Application Gateway allows us to hide all of our backend components from our clients."
"Microsoft has a vast variety of tools, and it blends very well."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"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."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
 

Cons

"It would be good if the solution's feature set could be expanded to mirror what currently exists on the public cloud."
"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."
"Customer service can be improved. There is room for improvement, specifically in paid support, by providing more direct contact."
"Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway seven out of ten. It can be improved; for example, one feature I mentioned is the support for non-HTTPS protocols such as TCP, which could allow one endpoint for all kinds of protocols."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"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."
"Scalability can be an issue."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is expensive."
"The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten."
"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
"The cost is not an issue."
"The product is not expensive."
"The solution is fairly priced."
"The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has less price than other application gateway solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Insurance Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise24
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What's the difference between Azure Front Door and Application Gateway?
We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Regarding the pricing and licensing of Application Gateway, it is not cheap because the version we are using is WAF V2, and we are also using DDoS Premium Protection. I think the price of WAF on Ap...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva, Radware, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.