We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiWeb and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."The GUI makes it easy to scale in terms of learning and utilization."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The solution has a good sandbox feature."
"We find that it is quite stable and reliable."
"High-performance and detection engines, provide a high rate of exposure of web attacks."
"SSL Offloading simplifies the public certificate handling and brings additional protection features."
"It is easy to install and to maintain."
"FortiWeb's ease of deployment is what we liked the most about it. Implementing FortiWeb was extremely fast and easy, which was a significant advantage. It comes with several preconfigured rule sets and templates."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"It would also be helpful if they could introduce easier reporting. It's good to have those reports that go to C-level management, and Fortinet does provide some graphs, but if they went into some more detail, that would be great."
"Centralized configuration using FortiManager – like what exists for NGFW FortiGate appliances - would improve the configuration."
"Fortinet FortiWeb could improve data integration."
"It is not entirely user-friendly."
"Fortinet WAF came out recently, and there is not much feedback about customer experience. For each project, customers ask about the scenarios and references of the customers who have implemented this solution, which we don't have. They need to simplify the customer experience and provide more information so that we can propose Fortinet Fortiweb as a WAF solution to customers and convince them. They need to improve their service and training. We need good training to implement and use it properly and know more about it. We still don't know much about Fortinet WAF. We didn't get any proper training sessions. Other vendors like Cisco, Palo Alto, Check Point, and Barracuda provide such sessions. Whenever we receive a request from a customer for this solution, we just give the price. We don't propose this solution because we don't know much about it. We propose whatever we are familiar with and what is supported."
"Integration and learning about attacks. I would improve these areas by making FortiWeb integrate with other network technologies and feedback from multiple platforms."
"If the price was lower, it would be a bit more attractive, as an option, to the customers."
"It may be better if it were easier to create roles."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"The product's performance should be better."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". 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". Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiOS, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and NGINX App Protect. See our Fortinet FortiWeb 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.
