

AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are competitors in the cloud-based web application firewall category. AWS WAF has the upper hand with its ease of integration and flexibility, while Azure Application Gateway shines in advanced traffic management and integration with Azure.
Features: AWS WAF excels with integration into AWS services, customization of WAF rules, and a pay-as-you-go pricing model that provides flexibility and scaling options. Azure Application Gateway stands out with its traffic management capabilities, ease of integration, and automatic scaling capabilities to manage load.
Room for Improvement:AWS WAF could improve with better automation, more intuitive billing practices, and support for advanced features like comprehensive DDoS protection. It also needs enhancements in technical support and documentation. Azure Application Gateway could benefit from improved security features, more robust protocol support, and flexibility in feature application, with users also seeking better pricing models and enhanced support and documentation.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: AWS WAF is noted for its ease of deployment, especially in public cloud settings, but lacks multicloud support and advanced features. Customer service receives mixed reviews. Azure Application Gateway offers ease of deployment across cloud environments and flexible scaling options. Its customer service is generally well-regarded, emphasizing integration with Azure's extensive cloud service offerings.
Pricing and ROI: Both AWS WAF and Azure Application Gateway offer competitive pricing strategies. AWS WAF is appreciated for its cost-effectiveness through pay-as-you-go and subscription-based models, though some users find it expensive based on usage and feature integration. Azure Application Gateway follows a usage-based cost model and is valued for cost savings when integrated with other Azure services.
With AWS WAF, it is easier for us to block unwanted malicious DDoS attacks and threats from coming into our web application.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway significantly impacts our cost savings while maintaining higher performance.
If we can use a shared resource, then the return on investment is really nice.
We have seen a return on investment in terms of time-saving and cost-saving by not creating our own infrastructure.
Resolving issues can take time because the support personnel may lack product expertise, leading to delays.
They reach out when you send them a ticket, and within 24 hours or less, someone is able to get back to you to solve your problem.
I would say they provide the best support for Application Gateway because they own the product, so their support is top-notch.
There is room for improvement, specifically in paid support, by providing more direct contact.
I would rate Microsoft support as good because they have a very skilled technical support team in the background
AWS WAF does scale in the sense that it is fully managed and has automatic scaling.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a very scalable product.
It has the autoscaling feature, so there is not much concern around performance; it can scale significantly.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a scalable solution.
Since it protects web applications from common attacks such as SQL injection and XSS, it is very stable.
In terms of reliability, I would rate AWS WAF about six out of ten due to the need for improved signature sets.
We faced issues with AWS WAF when writing the custom rules.
We have been using it for the past two to three years, and there have been good results with no problems so far.
The stability is good, and except for a few instances, I don't see the non-availability of Azure Cloud services.
Compared to firewalls, WAFs generally provide limited stateful analysis capabilities.
The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information.
Features like bot protection or DDoS mitigation, available with other WAF vendors, do not come natively with AWS WAF.
One feature I mentioned is the support for non-HTTPS protocols such as TCP, which could allow one endpoint for all kinds of protocols.
There is room for improvement in terms of support, such as assigning agents directly for more straightforward engagement.
In future releases of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, I would like to see more AI functionalities and a better dashboard as well as some customizations.
Due to our status as an AWS shop, AWS WAF is cost-effective for us, and we benefit from discounts due to our extensive use of AWS services.
The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
We would prefer to have it cheaper, but it is still expensive.
Azure solutions are quite expensive.
When it comes to pricing for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, I would rate it a seven out of ten.
The biggest benefit of AWS WAF for us is to filter malicious requests, so we can protect our environment and application from malicious actors.
It has also helped to improve the posture of our application, prevent all DDoS attacks, and unnecessary traffic and SQL injection that is reducing the performance of our application.
The cloud-native nature of AWS is crucial since most of our workload is in AWS, making AWS WAF native to Amazon Web Services.
We are using it for some of the security features for our applications, particularly for securing traffic in transit with SSL.
The Web Application Firewall (WAF) in Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has been very effective in protecting applications from security threats.
The gateway's Web Application Firewall feature enhances security as it is the first entry point to your network from the outside world.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| AWS WAF | 5.6% |
| Microsoft Azure Application Gateway | 5.4% |
| Other | 89.0% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 22 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 12 |
| Large Enterprise | 26 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 22 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 6 |
| Large Enterprise | 24 |
AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) is a firewall security system that monitors incoming and outgoing traffic for applications and websites based on your pre-defined web security rules. AWS WAF defends applications and websites from common Web attacks that could otherwise damage application performance and availability and compromise security.
You can create rules in AWS WAF that can include blocking specific HTTP headers, IP addresses, and URI strings. These rules prevent common web exploits, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. Once defined, new rules are deployed within seconds, and can easily be tracked so you can monitor their effectiveness via real-time insights. These saved metrics include URIs, IP addresses, and geo locations for each request.
AWS WAF Features
Some of the solution's top features include:
Reviews from Real Users
AWS WAF stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its user-friendly interface and its integration capabilities.
Kavin K., a security analyst at M2P Fintech, writes, “I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through.”
Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.
To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.
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.