We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and F5 Advanced WAF 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 has been a stable product in my experience."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its grand unity of the implementation, where you have the freedom to configure based on how it affects your use case or your organization. With the default setting of implicit deny, you can gradually start defining and deploying the tool to align with your environment, whether it is outdated, recent, or futuristic. This allows you to customize the solution to protect you from threat actors. You have the ability to define what the advanced threat act should do - whether it should alert, deny, or both - and it will deliver based on your configuration. Unlike other online solutions, F5 Advanced WAF provides flexibility to deliver to your unique environment the way you want."
"There is no need to worry about updating signatures because WAF will automatically update the signatures for you."
"The solution uses AI to protect against botnet attacks."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the overall capabilities, there is not a comparable solution on the market."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to have a pool of resources that can distribute your traffic, and that is a plus for me. My company tried to look into a competitor, Imperva, but it was lacking that capability, so F5 Advanced WAF outperforms Imperva."
"I like them because I like the security solution. They get extra marks compared to other solutions or competitors. There are more features than any other product I can think of. They're always monitoring, and the security features offer more than other, lesser products."
"With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The management can be improved."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"One area for improvement in the product is its SSO integration, which posed challenges and required significant effort to resolve."
"The pricing could be more flexible."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"The overall price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Citrix Web App and API Protection. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. F5 Advanced WAF 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.