We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Sucuri based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"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."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The product's performance should be better."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
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 Sucuri is ranked 21st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while Sucuri is rated 8.4. 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 Sucuri writes "Simple solution and good WAF". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Sucuri is most compared with Cloudflare, AWS WAF, SiteLock, Comodo cWatch and CDN77. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Sucuri 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.
