We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Radware Cloud WAF Service 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 aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The interface is good."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"The stability of AWS WAF is valuable."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The solution is stable."
"Cloud WAF's interface is easy to use and protects us from OWASP Top Ten threats. Our dev team do QA checks on applications before they go live, but Cloud WAF creates an additional security layer on our website."
"What makes this a comprehensive offering from Radware is that it combines WAF, ADA, bot management, and API protection, which is not currently available from any other provider in the market."
"From a financial point of view, we no longer need to appropriate more horsepower to our backend web servers constantly to service these requests because Cloud WAF is preventing malicious bots from accessing our web page. It reduced the load on our backend."
"I particularly appreciate the low administrative burden of this solution, as well as the excellent monitoring tools."
"With the current visibility dashboard, we can now obtain insight into the nature of attacks, identify attackers, and detect top IP or threat regions."
"DDoS protection is a valuable feature that works efficiently."
"The API Discovery is also very good because the application is outsourced, which means that we don't have the code. API Discovery allowed me to discover precisely how to orchestrate the API so that I could see the results."
"One of the most valuable features we have found in the solution is protection against attacks from botnet networks and the requests that these remote networks can generate that are blocked from our servers. That frees us from having to deal with that traffic."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"The price could be improved."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"We need more support as we go global."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"They've changed their process for call logging. I suppose it's fine, but I used to be able to send emails in. They could also build up more local resiliency here in South Africa. They're working on that, so it isn't much of an issue now."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service has limited integrations, and I would like to see it integrate with our use of Azure DevOps."
"The lower-level technical team at Radware could improve their approach to problem-solving as they sometimes are very slow."
"The connection between the front and back ends could be improved."
"If we want to publish services to a limited number of providers and we only want those providers to connect, we need to forward those requests to the Radware support team and they apply them, but it takes some time."
"Our only complaint is the reporting on the DDoS side. We also use Radware for on-premises DDoS protection and their Vision product. I just want to give paint you an example. We face so many Layer 3 and Layer 4 DDoS attacks on Cloud WAF. The reporting on those types of attacks can be improved."
"The integration part could be better."
"We receive many reports from our security team of IPs flagged by our security tools, such as Palo Alto. I cannot add the file containing the IPs to get them blocked; instead, I have to contact Radware support and open a ticket for them to do it. I need to be able to block flagged IPs myself, as it currently takes more time to open a ticket, contact the support team, and wait four to six hours for a response. I want to be able to upload a file with 2,000-3,000 IPs in the console and then apply and save the configuration."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Radware Cloud WAF Service is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Radware Cloud WAF Service is rated 8.6. 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 Radware Cloud WAF Service writes "Serves as a comprehensive solution for both our current and prospective customers, generating revenue for us". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fastly, whereas Radware Cloud WAF Service is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Imperva DDoS, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. Radware Cloud WAF Service 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.