Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Sucuri comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

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

Microsoft Azure Application...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
5th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (4th)
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
37th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (26th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is 6.0%, down from 10.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 1.1%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway6.0%
Sucuri1.1%
Other92.9%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
JS
Hardware Engineer at Ministry of Defense
A cost-effective choice for website security and informative support with issues related to CDN quality
One area where they could improve is in providing real-time support options because now you need to open a support ticket and wait for their response. It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance. I have found their Content Delivery Network service to be lacking in quality, and it could certainly be enhanced to provide better performance. I would also like to see improvements in the deployment process, as it currently takes more time than desirable. Another significant concern is that their service when your website is down, turns it into a static site. This means that if customers try to visit your site during downtime, they will see old content from the static site, which is not ideal. The CDN and tracking services are areas that need improvement, as well as addressing their bandwidth limitations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The load balancing features are valuable."
"Microsoft has a vast variety of tools, and it blends very well."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an easy-to-use solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
 

Cons

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has room for improvement because it offers many features, but its configuration is a bit difficult, at least from the developer point of view."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"Customer service can be improved. There is room for improvement, specifically in paid support, by providing more direct contact."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is not expensive."
"There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution."
"Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
"I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this."
"The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go."
"It is not expensive."
"The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten."
"The solution is cheaper than Imperva. I rate it four to five out of ten."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise24
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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 do you like most about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.