We compared Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is praised for its load balancing capabilities, SSL termination, and integration with Azure services. Users are satisfied with customer support, reasonable pricing, and positive ROI. Improvement areas include scalability and user interface. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall excels in website security, customer service, integration with Cloudflare services, and competitive pricing. Users appreciate its user-friendly interface and detailed reporting capabilities. Areas for enhancement include customization options, response times, and ease of use.
Features: The valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway include excellent load balancing capabilities and seamless integration with other Azure services. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is highly praised for its ability to enhance website security and effectively block malicious traffic. Additionally, it offers comprehensive reporting capabilities and seamless integration with other Cloudflare services.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is minimal and the pricing is considered fair by customers. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall offers competitive pricing with straightforward setup costs and users appreciate the flexibility of licensing options available., Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has positive ROI with efficient and reliable performance, cost-effectiveness, scalability, flexibility, and ease of use. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also results in significant financial gains.
Room for Improvement: Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has room for improvement in terms of scalability, performance, user interface, documentation, and support resources. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could benefit from enhancements in customization options, response times, ease of use, and interface simplification.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway revealed varying durations for deployment and setup, ranging from three months and an additional week to just one week for both phases. On the other hand, reviews for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also showed variations in the time required, with some users mentioning three months for deployment and a week for setup, while others reported one week for both phases. Context is crucial for accurate evaluation., Regarding customer service and support, both Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall receive positive remarks from users. Azure's support is praised for its responsiveness, expertise, and helpfulness in resolving issues. On the other hand, Cloudflare's support is commended for its prompt addressing of issues and clear instructions, making users feel supported and confident in using the product.
The summary above is based on 32 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Does a good job preventing web application attacks."
"The integration of Cloudflare with Cloud Suite is its most valuable feature."
"It is a SaaS solution unlike much of the competition."
"The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration."
"Caching is the most valuable feature of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall."
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"We like that there's load balancing, firewall capabilities, DDoS protection, et cetera, all covered by Cloudflare."
"It is configurable via API."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The accuracy of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could be improved by reducing the number of false-negative alerts."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."
"If they add logs history within the Cloudflare offering, that would be a great benefit."
"The platform's control features related to real-time authentication and response time need improvement."
"The notification part could be improved. It's very much connected to Web Application Firewall, rate-limiting, and DDoS protection."
"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."
"The blocked logs are difficult to read at times."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"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."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall writes "A cloud solution for web application firewall protection with rate-limiting, managed, and custom firewall rules". 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". Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is most compared with Akamai App and API Protector, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, Azure Front Door and HAProxy. See our Cloudflare Web Application Firewall 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.