We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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."It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The solution offers better data protection than competitors."
"We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling."
"Capture ATP is a good additional feature in the latest version."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The product's performance should be better."
"The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."
"We have a lot of unknown errors popping up in the latest version."
"We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More SonicWall Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is ranked 25th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall Web Application Firewall writes "A stable and durable solution that can be used for security and tunneling". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas SonicWall Web Application Firewall is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. SonicWall Web Application Firewall 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.