We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Azure Front Door based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL."
"AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"AWS WAF helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection that happen within the retail industry."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"The solution is good."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"The product must provide more features."
"AWS WAF could improve by making the overall management easier. Many people that have started working with AWS WAF do not have an easy time. They should make it easy to use."
"The solution can improve its price."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Azure Front Door is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall, whereas Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and Windows Azure CDN. See our AWS WAF vs. Azure Front Door 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.