We performed a comparison between Citrix Web App and API Protection 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."When our primary link goes down I can still get to my Cisco devices and the NetScaler devices on-prem because of the SDN solution. If the internet connection at one of the branches goes down, we can still route them, they still get internet based on the SDN solution through one of the other sites. They can carry on working."
"The work balancing applications are the most valuable feature."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"Citrix Web App API Protection allows you to enable a blocking mode"
"I like the solution's simplicity compared to Citrix's on-prem solutions."
"The web application firewall which protects our services on the internet, and then of course services like our ability to provide high availability for the services we are offering are the most valuable features."
"We have good customer support."
"The stability is good. If there is a problem, the load will be shifted to other sites automatically, which has been a good experience for us."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"The configuration for its web application firewall is complicated."
"Citrix Web App and API Protection could improve in the area of licensing"
"Security could be improved because then I can get rid of my Cisco firewalls. If they improve the security then I could run my security, my proxy, my firewalling and my SDN solution on one device instead of having to have multiple devices."
"The reporting is not so good. They don't have an application to connect the logs."
"The product could be improved by making it easier to use and easier to implement."
"An area for improvement in Citrix Web App and API Protection is for it to give real-time notifications and alerts. It would be practical if the solution warns you if there's an attack or if the load or traffic volume increases or decreases. An additional feature I'd like to see in Citrix Web App and API Protection is a prediction or artificial intelligence on what is happening, for example, attacks."
"The solution's pricing is a big concern and should be improved."
"The user interface could be more friendly. Some wizards and other documentation for administrators, as well as some use cases, helps us to understand the solution."
"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."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"Microsoft needs to work on their documentation."
More Citrix Web App and API Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix Web App and API Protection is ranked 20th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Citrix Web App and API Protection is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Web App and API Protection writes "Affordable, provides advanced features, and protects applications". 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". Citrix Web App and API Protection is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door, Fortinet FortiWeb, AWS WAF and Akamai App and API Protector, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Citrix Web App and API Protection 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.