No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Huawei Cloud WAF vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Huawei Cloud WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
42nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Azure Application...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
10th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Huawei Cloud WAF is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is 2.8%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway2.8%
Huawei Cloud WAF0.7%
Other96.5%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Chinedu Omenogor - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Operations Engineer at Galaxy Backbone Ltd
Easy to use, but its feature set could be expanded to mirror what currently exists on the public cloud
We have a private cloud leveraging Huawei technology. We use Huawei Cloud WAF to provide cloud services for governments, ministries, departments, and some private sector organizations The most valuable feature of Huawei Cloud WAF is its ease of use. It would be good if the solution's feature set…
SS
Cloud Specialist at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Mutual TLS has secured our web services and now needs broader protocol support
The most valuable feature we have found in Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is mutual TLS. We find mutual TLS valuable because we can verify the client securely by setting up the trust certificate of the client, and also if we do it at the client side as well. This successfully develops mutual trust, ensuring that we know the client who is calling our service is a legitimate client. That is a very nice feature.Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has helped manage our traffic efficiently because we have many web services that we can put behind the same URL, and we can have different URLs with the same Application Gateway with a limited number of listeners. We can do host-based routing as well as URL-based routing or path-based routing. It supports both, so we can have even a single URL supporting many applications, or we can have different URLs for different applications respectively. We have both use cases.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Huawei Cloud WAF is its ease of use."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Microsoft has a vast variety of tools, and it blends very well."
"The load balancing features are valuable."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
 

Cons

"It would be good if the solution's feature set could be expanded to mirror what currently exists on the public cloud."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"We faced some downtime while validating CNAME."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"We got the feeling that this product wasn't stable or good enough for us."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
"There is some additional cost, such as extended support."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive."
"The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has less price than other application gateway solutions."
"The pricing is based on how much you use the solution."
"The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go."
"I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Insurance Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise24
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What's the difference between Azure Front Door and Application Gateway?
We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Regarding the pricing and licensing of Application Gateway, it is not cheap because the version we are using is WAF V2, and we are also using DDoS Premium Protection. I think the price of WAF on Ap...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva, Radware, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.