We compared Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is praised for its load balancing capabilities, SSL termination, and integration with Azure services. Users are satisfied with customer support, reasonable pricing, and positive ROI. Improvement areas include scalability and user interface. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall excels in website security, customer service, integration with Cloudflare services, and competitive pricing. Users appreciate its user-friendly interface and detailed reporting capabilities. Areas for enhancement include customization options, response times, and ease of use.
Features: The valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway include excellent load balancing capabilities and seamless integration with other Azure services. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is highly praised for its ability to enhance website security and effectively block malicious traffic. Additionally, it offers comprehensive reporting capabilities and seamless integration with other Cloudflare services.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is minimal and the pricing is considered fair by customers. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall offers competitive pricing with straightforward setup costs and users appreciate the flexibility of licensing options available., Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has positive ROI with efficient and reliable performance, cost-effectiveness, scalability, flexibility, and ease of use. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also results in significant financial gains.
Room for Improvement: Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has room for improvement in terms of scalability, performance, user interface, documentation, and support resources. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could benefit from enhancements in customization options, response times, ease of use, and interface simplification.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway revealed varying durations for deployment and setup, ranging from three months and an additional week to just one week for both phases. On the other hand, reviews for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also showed variations in the time required, with some users mentioning three months for deployment and a week for setup, while others reported one week for both phases. Context is crucial for accurate evaluation., Regarding customer service and support, both Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall receive positive remarks from users. Azure's support is praised for its responsiveness, expertise, and helpfulness in resolving issues. On the other hand, Cloudflare's support is commended for its prompt addressing of issues and clear instructions, making users feel supported and confident in using the product.
The summary above is based on 32 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Does a good job preventing web application attacks."
"The product has a valuable security control functionality."
"We like that there's load balancing, firewall capabilities, DDoS protection, et cetera, all covered by Cloudflare."
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."
"It protects web applications efficiently."
"I'm highly satisfied. It's remarkably user-friendly, enabling me to quickly identify issues, and deploy solutions, and it offers the necessary features."
"The initial setup process is simple."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"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."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"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 rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"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."
"The reporting could be more granular."
"I have experienced some difficulties with Cloudflare's support as a customer based in India."
"The blocked logs are difficult to read at times."
"It would be ideal if the solution offered better log integration and more integration with different platforms."
"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."
"Its stability could be better."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."
"They have some limitations with third-party integrations."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall writes "A cloud solution for web application firewall protection with rate-limiting, managed, and custom firewall rules". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is most compared with Akamai App and API Protector, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and HAProxy. See our Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.