We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"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."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The area that should be improved is licensing."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is ranked 31st in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) writes "Geo-localization and IP reputation help to keep our clients secure and more available". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai App and API Protector.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.
