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

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Entra ID Protection 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:
 

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 Entra ID Protection
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Identity Management (IM) (8th), Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.8%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Entra ID Protection is 4.8%, up from 3.4% 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.
Mahender Nirwan - PeerSpot reviewer
Access to other software is just one click away and suitable for big organizations
Currently, we have limited use of Microsoft AD. We only use it to see if user blocks are available. If they are, we unblock the account and get access accordingly. AD has paid access control features. We can add access control over AD. For example, for documentation, we use an Outline tool. It's open source, and we add our company's knowledge base to it. It's an alternative to Confluence. We don't want everyone to have access to all documentation. If I create documentation for my team, only my team should have access, not support or sales. We can add these scopes or access controls over AD. Once integrated, the person will get the appropriate access control features upon logging in. Role-based access control is a great feature of Active Directory.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is almost impossible to access these assets from outside, requiring a very skilled attacker to obtain asset tokens of a customer using Azure."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Web Application Firewall is its ability to filter requests and block false positives by using custom rules and the OWASP rule set."
"Configuration is much easier than using different platforms."
"The tool is simple and you can find a lot of tutorials, and videos on YouTube that can help you."
"The solution helps us with authentication."
"The primary and most valuable aspect of Azure AD identity is its ability to function seamlessly on both on-premise and cloud infrastructure, eliminating the need for extensive updates. However, this dual solution can pose vulnerabilities that require substantial support and security measures in the on-premise environment. Despite the challenges, it is currently not feasible to completely abandon AD, especially for companies in the sales and energy sectors. The integration with Microsoft Defender is crucial for enhancing security, making identity and security the primary focus and purpose of Azure AD."
"The most valuable features are the API apps, which I use to connect to my cloud Protection."
"The reverse proxy feature provides additional security that is not available in other solutions."
"I find the most valuable feature to be conditional access. It allows for comprehensive security controls, network security, and application label security."
"The deployment process is straightforward. It takes a few hours to complete."
"The multifactor authentication feature is effective, providing an additional layer of security."
 

Cons

"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The management can be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"The knowledge base could be improved."
"The solution's sync should be faster since it can take about 30 minutes to two hours to complete a simple sync. The tool needs to sync instantly. It also needs to improve scalability, support, and stability."
"The solution is not optimized to work with Mac devices on a granular level. They work seamlessly with Windows but have a lot to improve to work with Mac devices. It also needs to improve stability and scalability."
"The platform's pricing and scalability need improvement."
"The recent CrowdStrike issue affected most systems."
"Entra ID lacks a function to synchronize from the cloud to the local directory. This is a significant issue since there is no write-back feature from the cloud to local, which would allow me to use my own credentials from the cloud tenant securely."
"Azure AD could improve by enhancing the availability of specialized courses for security, such as NETSCOUT security or other relevant certifications. It would be beneficial to have specific courses for security, to provide in-depth knowledge and skills related to Azure AD. While there are micro-learning resources available for various concepts, many people in the IT industry may not have the time to go through all the courses to properly configure and utilize Azure Active Directory. Simplifying the implementation process and making it easier for individuals to join a company with Azure AD could also be considered areas for improvement."
"The product's initial setup phase is not easy."
"Microsoft has room for improvement in simplifying their integration with third-party solutions and making the licensing model more understandable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"The product cost is on the expensive side."
"From one to ten, if one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the tool a seven out of ten."
"The price of Azure AD is not expensive."
"Azure Active Directory Identity Protection is not very expensive."
"The pricing is competitive in the SMA segment and runs $5-$6 per user."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
9%
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 Azure Active Directory Identity Protection?
Microsoft Entra ID requires additional licensing components, particularly for Entra ID governance as an add-on for those with P1 or P2 licenses.
What needs improvement with Azure Active Directory Identity Protection?
Microsoft has not offered control over how they calculate high or low-risk scenarios. While they mention if a low risk is found by Microsoft, the triggered policy isn't customizable. Enhanced confi...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Azure Active Directory Identity Protection, Azure AD Identity Protection
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Entra ID Protection and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.