Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.0
Azure WAF cuts costs, eliminates third-party needs, improves ROI, meets security requirements, and offers reliable, favorable protection.
Sentiment score
5.8
Microsoft Defender is essential and affordable for users, offering cost advantages over AWS, despite unclear individual financial benefits.
AI-based recommendations save on time and money.
Recently, they have been under serious attack with major exploits, such as Log4j, affecting Fortinet and Palo Alto, and even Cisco and VMware.
As a Microsoft partner, we receive significant discounts, making the solution affordable for us.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
Azure Web Application Firewall support varies; premium plans offer better service, while others find self-reliance sufficient.
Sentiment score
7.6
Microsoft Defender's support is reliable yet inconsistent in communication and timeliness, praised for skills but needs improvement.
I hardly use Microsoft's paid subscription or maintenance services, however, whenever I send them a note, they have been responsive.
I am very satisfied with the response from Microsoft dedicated architects if it happens that I have to call for their support.
They are sometimes responsive, however, often issues cannot be reproduced on their end, making it challenging.
My team raised multiple support tickets for the product, and we were able to get responses from Microsoft support team.
Their response time and skill set are both good.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Azure Web Application Firewall offers flexible scaling options, dependent on subscription, with high ratings for managing large deployments.
Sentiment score
8.5
Microsoft Defender is praised for its scalability and integration, efficiently managing vulnerabilities across various sectors and servers.
Some Azure applications, like the web application firewall, require a certain level of SKU for hosting setup.
It is scalable; I evaluated the product and decided to use Defender on over 700 of our company servers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
Azure Web Application Firewall is stable and reliable, with rare performance issues, mainly solved by system restart.
Sentiment score
6.5
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is stable and reliable, though it has minor compatibility issues and can be resource-intensive.
Very rarely do I see any latency issues.
It is very resource-intensive, consuming a lot of memory and CPU.
There are compatibility issues occasionally arising with false positives when other security tools are not whitelisted in Microsoft Defender.
I would rate the overall stability as an eight.
 

Room For Improvement

Azure WAF needs improvements in management, deployment simplicity, affordability, IP support, and comprehensive documentation for better user experience.
Improve efficiency by reducing false positives and enhancing integration, stability, and AI capabilities while considering cost and resource demands.
Upgrading the platform regularly is necessary for security, however, frequent updates every six months or year from Azure can be a maintenance overhead.
A vulnerability I patch within 15 minutes takes 24 additional hours for an update.
The product is not stable; it often uses excessive memory and CPU, which makes it slow.
The automated remediations can be more specific.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find Azure Web Application Firewall cost-effective and straightforward compared to AWS and GCP, especially in Brazil.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management has competitive pricing, requiring a license upgrade for additional features, often included in packages.
It is even a lower cost compared to AWS and GCP.
Sometimes, when opting for a higher SKU, it's not the WAF itself that's costly but the additional requirements.
Overall, every organization wishes for cheaper options, but we look at the security side as well, so we are good for now.
For non-partners, however, the cost could be seen as higher, between seven to ten.
The pricing is reasonable, and it's included in the whole Microsoft E5 bundle, so it's all-inclusive.
 

Valuable Features

Azure Web Application Firewall offers scalable, easy-to-configure protection with flexible pricing, enhancing security against DDoS and unauthorized access.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management enhances security and efficiency through integration, accurate assessments, risk analysis, and management features.
With Microsoft, everything is within a single suite, making it easier to configure and plan.
It is almost impossible to access these assets from outside, requiring a very skilled attacker to obtain asset tokens of a customer using Azure.
A valuable feature is the ease of management and integration with Microsoft products.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management provides regular advisories and recommendations that help improve our security posture.
The recommendations, scores, and steps to remediate actions are highly useful.
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Web Application Firewall
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
20th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (13th)
Microsoft Defender Vulnerab...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (14th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (17th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.9%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Microsoft Security Suite
 

Featured Reviews

Mano Senaratne - PeerSpot reviewer
Comprehensive suite simplifies configuration while frequent updates require management
Mainly, it comes with the complete suite of Microsoft services. I can use it in conjunction with the best options and other features that come with it. Configuration is much easier than using different platforms. For example, if I have hosted the application in AWS and am using the Application Firewall from Azure, there are certain additional steps to follow when configuring them. With Microsoft, everything is within a single suite, making it easier to configure and plan. Azure continually upgrades platforms and sends us messages to upgrade to the next version, simplifying the process. Later, it's much easier if I want to upgrade the software platform, scale it, or move it to a different application host as the whole suite comes together. The return on investment is good. If I am doing applications for clients, I can invoice them for better costs. Most applications that I run and use have a better return on investment.
TakayukiUmehara - PeerSpot reviewer
Ease of management and integration supports operations, but has high resource consumption
A valuable feature is the ease of management and integration with Microsoft products. I appreciate that I can click on a server in the Defender Console, notice a risk, and retrieve all necessary information. Speed is a key feature as it is very quick to administer and allows for manual configuration from the portal.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
847,625 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?
The pricing is okay at the moment. Sometimes, when opting for a higher SKU, it's not the WAF itself that's costly but the additional requirements. A higher SKU application hosting platform adds to ...
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
While using it, I identified certain areas where it would have been good to have additional features. Right now, I can't recall any specific instances. Seamless integration is good, yet having mult...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?
I would rate the price as a three for us due to the partnership discounts. For non-partners, however, the cost could be seen as higher, between seven to ten.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?
For our current usage, we do not have any complaints, but a potential improvement could be the introduction of a more advanced AI agent, possibly a large language model with better performance than...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
847,625 professionals have used our research since 2012.