We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsoft Security Suite solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has good dashboards."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"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 is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The most valuable feature is the seamless integration across different clouds."
"Shadow IT discovery is the feature I like the most."
"Everything from Microsoft is integrated. You receive regular reports on them all. You can push your reports, logs, and security alerts, which are all integrated. It is crucial that these solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment."
"The feature that helps us in detecting the sensitive information being shared has been very useful. In addition, the feature that allows MCAS to apply policies with SharePoint, Teams, and OneDrive is being used predominantly."
"All of the features are valuable because all of the features are related."
"The most valuable feature is its policy implementation."
"Defender helps us control which applications are being used and gain more security insight into remote and hybrid users based on user identity and log in location. You can also integrate Defender for Cloud Apps with Defender for Endpoint to extend its capabilities."
"The general usability of the solution is very straightforward."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The management can be improved."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"I believe it's only set to be integrated with Microsoft Defender for identity and identity protection. I would like to see it available for use with something like Office 365 Defender. I don't think it's integrated with that yet."
"Sometimes the support is actually lacking."
"The integration with macOS operating systems needs to be better."
"I want them to enhance in-session policy."
"It doesn't actually decrease the time to respond. This has been an issue with Microsoft recently. Sometimes, there is a delay when it comes to getting an alert policy email... Sometimes it takes two or three hours for that email to be sent."
"Generally, the pricing can always be improved along with the management system."
"They need to improve the attack surface reduction (ASR) rules. In the latest version, you can implement ASR rules, which are quite useful, but you have to enable those because if they're not enabled, they flag false positives. In the Defender portal, it logs a block for WMI processes and PowerShell. Apparently, it's because ASR rules are not configured. So, you generally have to enable them to exclude, for example, WMI queries or PowerShell because they have a habit of blocking your security scanners. It's a bit weird that they have to be enabled to be configured, and it's not the other way around."
"Currently, reporting is not very straightforward and it needs to be enhanced. Specific reports are not included and you need to run a query, drill down, and then export it and share it. I would love to have reports with more fine-tuning or granularity, and more predefined reports."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 19th in Microsoft Security Suite with 9 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is ranked 10th in Microsoft Security Suite with 30 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is rated 8.4. 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 Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps writes "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps report.
See our list of best Microsoft Security Suite vendors.
We monitor all Microsoft Security Suite 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.