"It is easier to configure and develop documentation to see how we have configured firewalls."
"The solution is very good at mitigating threats."
"The DDoS protection is the most valuable aspect of the solution."
"New and innovative way to protect the client's data."
"The most valuable feature is the web application firewall."
"From what I've seen so far, there are no negatives to report as of yet"
"It's very user-friendly."
"There are key things that are used for our enterprise customers, such as Lambda and DNS."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The pricing is quite good."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"Although I think it's quite good, it doesn't provide me with all the features I would expect to have if I were using Imperva."
"Latencies are always a problem."
"The solution could work at being less expensive. It costs a lot to use it."
"Technical support is lacking."
"It should have easier documentation for the configuration. It's very technical and people who aren't technical should also be able to do the configuration."
"The solution could use more analytics on the backend to give us more insights into everything. More reports would be helpful."
"There should be a specific price list for enterprise-level customers."
"There are some issues with the CDN services."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"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."
Cloudflare is the leading performance and security company helping to build a better Internet. Today the company runs one of the world’s largest networks that powers more than 9 million Internet applications. More than 10 trillion Internet requests flow through Cloudflare’s network each month, accounting for nearly 10% of all Internet requests globally.
Cloudflare protects and accelerates any Internet application online without adding hardware, installing software, or changing a line of code. Internet properties powered by Cloudflare have all web traffic routed through its intelligent global network, which gets smarter with each new site added. As a result, they see significant improvement in performance and a decrease in spam and other attacks.
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.
Cloudflare is ranked 3rd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 8 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 12 reviews. Cloudflare is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Cloudflare writes "Robust, secure and innovative; technical support needs to be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". Cloudflare is most compared with Imperva Incapsula, Azure Front Door, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, AWS WAF and Arbor DDoS, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF and HAProxy. See our Cloudflare vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection 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.