"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"A user-friendly and reasonably priced solution."
"The product offers high availability."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"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."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"You need to have pretty good internal knowledge of the solution."
"Scalability should be based on customer requirements."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 12 reviews while Radware AppWall is ranked 19th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0, while Radware AppWall is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware AppWall writes "Stable with high availability and good dashboards". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), F5 Advanced WAF and HAProxy, whereas Radware AppWall is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai Kona Site Defender. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Radware AppWall report.
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.
