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

Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall 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

Ivanti Virtual Web Applicat...
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
17th
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
44th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Azure Application...
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
13th
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
10th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall is 2.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is 4.5%, down from 7.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway4.5%
Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall2.5%
Other93.0%
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

MD
Consultant at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
Good feature set and is simple to deploy
In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else. We sort of stopped deploying them because of that. There are additional costs to the standard licensing. There are bandwidth prices. The feature set is quite good. We've been told to stop using them because of the price. If they can do something to address that I believe it would be better. On the latest version they've got a community edition, which is quite a good bandwidth, but in essence, it's to address the entry-level price. When you get to 10 gig bandwidth, it's way too expensive.
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 aspect of this solution is that it is simple to deploy. The deployment took us ten minutes."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The Azure Application Gateway allows us to hide all of our backend components from our clients."
"The solution integrates different applications and APIs securely, enhancing overall security and network optimization."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an easy-to-use solution."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"Overall, we've had a good experience."
 

Cons

"In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else."
"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."
"Microsoft needs to work on their documentation."
"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 solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"We faced some downtime while validating CNAME."
"The documentation is not user-friendly and it is not very easy to use."
"The main drawback of the solution is that it's only for Azure."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a pretty affordable product. My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. The additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution vary."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is expensive."
"Regarding pricing for Azure Application Gateway, I would rate it at seven."
"We use the tool's basic subscription. Its licensing costs are monthly."
"The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten."
"The solution is reasonably priced compared to other solutions."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
19%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Performing Arts
9%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
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

Pulse vWAF, Pulse Virtual Traffic Manager
Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Gilt Groupe
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, HAProxy, NetScaler and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: September 2026.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.