Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs SonicWall Web Application Firewall comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. SonicWall Web Application Firewall Report (Updated: March 2024).
771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects.""The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable.""It does an excellent job of load balancing.""We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled.""I like the tool's stability and performance.""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.""In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pros →

"We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling.""The solution offers better data protection than competitors.""Capture ATP is a good additional feature in the latest version."

More SonicWall Web Application Firewall Pros →

Cons
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved.""The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration.""Scalability can be an issue.""Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful.""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.""The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems.""It could be easier to change servicing.""Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Cons →

"We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS.""We have a lot of unknown errors popping up in the latest version.""The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."

More SonicWall Web Application Firewall Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It is not expensive."
  • "Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
  • "Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
  • "There is some additional cost, such as extended support."
  • "The cost is not an issue."
  • "The solution is reasonably priced compared to other solutions."
  • "The pricing is based on how much you use the solution."
  • "The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."
  • More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer: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 for… more »
    Top Answer:I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily.
    Top Answer:We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling.
    Top Answer:We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS. There is some lag in the solution's technical support response time.
    Top Answer:Our company uses the solution to protect our website that is for internal resources only and does not allow enterprise access.
    Ranking
    Views
    14,238
    Comparisons
    12,302
    Reviews
    23
    Average Words per Review
    363
    Rating
    7.3
    Views
    158
    Comparisons
    114
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    293
    Rating
    9.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
    Learn More
    Overview

    Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.

    To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.

    The SonicWall Web Application Firewal l (WAF) solutions enables the defense-in-depth strategy to protect your web applications running in a private, public or hybrid cloud environment. compromise the application, steal data and/or cause a denial-of-service.

    Sample Customers
    Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
    AMANZIMTOTI HIGH SCHOOL
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company30%
    Comms Service Provider19%
    Financial Services Firm7%
    Healthcare Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Government7%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    No Data Available
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business38%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise48%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise64%
    No Data Available
    Buyer's Guide
    Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. SonicWall Web Application Firewall
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. SonicWall Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is ranked 25th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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 SonicWall Web Application Firewall writes "A stable and durable solution that can be used for security and tunneling". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas SonicWall Web Application Firewall is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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.