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.
"Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful."
"Does a good job preventing web application attacks."
"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."
"It is a SaaS solution unlike much of the competition."
"I'm highly satisfied. It's remarkably user-friendly, enabling me to quickly identify issues, and deploy solutions, and it offers the necessary features."
"It is configurable via API."
"Caching is the most valuable feature of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall."
"The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"It would be ideal if the solution offered better log integration and more integration with different platforms."
"A key challenge arises when dealing with numerous integrations with HVAC systems. Depending on the specifics, there might be some configuration mismatches, which necessitate specific support."
"Their documentation could be better. They don't have documentation that explains everything well. They have documentation for everything you're looking for, but they lack a single piece of documentation to tie everything together. As a new user or beginner, it took us a little bit of time to figure out how to put all these things in place."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."
"They have some limitations with third-party integrations."
"The reporting could be more granular."
"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."
"Its stability could be better."
"The product's performance should be better."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"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 tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
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 40 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 NGINX App Protect, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, 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.