Azure Web Application Firewall vs NetScaler comparison

"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."

"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."

"The solution has good dashboards."

"Azure WAF is extremely stable."

"It has been a stable product in my experience."

"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."

"The integration it has with GitHub is great."

"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."

"The solution can be configured very granularly and has good control over security."

"The program is easy to install and to set up."

"Citrix Netscaler makes it easy to provide services to end users, offering better visibility into user sessions compared to VMware. However, instability in network or machine can cause headaches as it's hard to pinpoint issues. SSL offload feature enhances security posture by providing secure connectivity between end users and backend systems. We use additional Azure remote security solutions for comprehensive protection."

"The solution is easy to work with and manage."

"My clients use it for load balancing."

"For NetScaler, our major use cases are database load balancing, PowerVPN VPN access gateway, WAF (Web Application Firewall), and content switching."

"Very stable."

"The most valuable feature of Citrix NetScaler was the seamless integration. Additionally, the UI is good."

"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."

"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."

"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."

"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."

"The documentation needs to be improved."

"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."

"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."

"The management can be improved."

"Deployment is complicated."

"The technical support has room for improvement."

"I would like to see them make it easier to do some of the more complex things. For example, a web re-direct requires two pieces to it. You have two ports and when people want to go to a web page, they just type in the webpage that on the backend it will redirect them to a secure link. The initial setup of that is cumbersome because you have to do it twice. There are things that can be replicated. The IP address, for example, is the same. This change would go a long way. Don't make me do it twice and don't make me have to read tons of documentation to figure out how to do it. Ease of configuration for some of the more complex processes would be a good improvement."

"The tool needs to add a feature where we can access the network policy access manager."

"The tool's pricing is a pain point since we have many cheaper alternatives."

"Manageability and adaptability can also be challenging for end customers."

"It does not have a sandbox cloud service and antivirus. It should have on-prem or cloud sandboxing and antivirus."

"I would like to see multifactor authentication added to this solution to improve the security."

"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."

"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."

"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."

"The solution is expensive compared to one of its competitors."

"It's not for startups or SOHO."

"In Turkey, everything is good, but it seems expensive for us due to the currency exchange. I don't have a specific rating scale, but if I had to rate the price, I would say it's around a six out of ten."

"F5 BIG-IP is much more expensive than Citrix ADC. For example, If we choose two platforms, Citrix ADC, 3000 version, and we choose F5, F4200 version. F5 BIG-IP has connections, timers, and throughput similar to Citrix ADC, but the price is very expensive."

"Price-wise, I feel that the solution is a little bit expensive."

"Citrix Web App and API Protection are in the middle when we talk about pricing and licensing"

"The tool is cheap."

"Costly product and complicated licensing."