Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Sucuri comparison

"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."

"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."

"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."

"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an easy-to-use solution."

"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."

"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."

"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."

"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."

"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."

"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."

"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."

"The initial setup was very easy."

"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."

"The product's performance should be better."

"Scalability can be an issue."

"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."

"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."

"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."

"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."

"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."

"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."

"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."

"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."

"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."

"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."

"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."

"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has less price than other application gateway solutions."

"The pricing is based on how much you use the solution."

"There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution."

"I rate the price of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight out of ten."

"The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."

"The solution is reasonably priced."

"The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten."

"The solution is fairly priced."

"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."

"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."

"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."

"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."