We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, AWS WAF has a slight edge over Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. Our reviewers found Microsoft to have challenges with stability, scalability, and support.
"We preferred the product based on its cost. AWS WAF is an out-of-the-box solution and integrates with the AWS services that we use. It's natively integrated with AWS."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"We should be able to do proper whitelisting."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"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."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". 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". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and HAProxy. See our AWS WAF 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.