Airlock vs F5 Advanced WAF comparison

"The product has a valuable security control functionality."

"The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration."

"The rate limiting features and customizations in terms of URL match and applying policies are valuable to me."

"The stability of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall deserves a perfect 10 out of 10."

"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."

"The initial setup process is simple."

"Cloudflare is cheaper compared to Azure WAF, which I have considered before."

"It protects web applications efficiently."

"Our customers are more than satisfied with the user experience provided by the product."

"I like the security features, especially against SQL injection."

"The product is used to secure web applications and has the ability to use API templates and bot protection features, such as blocking requests or presenting CAPTCHA pages to end users."

"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the easy identification of events and customization. We can pinpoint our settings."

"I would recommend this solution; it would be the best solution for WAF."

"Web attack signatures are very important for detecting web attacks."

"There are a lot of good features."

"The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features."

"F5 technical support is excellent. They are experts who always provide the right solution, and they understand the problem. Their response and resolution times are good."

"A key challenge arises when dealing with numerous integrations with HVAC systems. Depending on the specifics, there might be some configuration mismatches, which necessitate specific support."

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."

"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."

"They have some limitations with third-party integrations."

"The ModSecurity core rules need to be updated."

"Its stability could be better."

"The user interface is very simple and straightforward, but users need knowledge about DNS to accomplish tasks."

"The platform's control features related to real-time authentication and response time need improvement."

"The tool must be simplified."

"I think the deployment templates can be better."

"The Sandbox integration feature could be improved."

"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."

"We get false positives sometimes."

"It's a powerful tool yet can be complex for new users."

"While F5 Advanced WAF does limit the number of partners in certain regions to ensure successful business transactions, they could also benefit from expanding their partnerships and making it easier for more people to learn about and become experts in F5 Advanced WAF. By doing so, they could increase the reach and exposure of their solution, similar to how Cisco has become widely recognized in the security industry."

"I would say their graphical interface, the GUI. I don't like the GUI as much as before."

"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."

"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."

"The solution is expensive."

"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."

"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."

"It is not too pricey."

"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"

"What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing? I believe the pricing is not the best, but it's reasonable and acceptable. We also use the McAfee system in parallel. In terms of pricing, its okay - not great, but not bad either. It falls in the middle, which is acceptable. In terms of support licensing, last time, we were searching for a solution, and we considered products from resellers rather than directly from the cloud provider. However, the pricing we encountered was exceptionally high. As a result, we are inclined to select support from the reseller."

"The tool is cheap."

"The pricing for F5 Advanced WAF is comparable to a Rolls-Royce. Its price is a bit high when you compare it with other vendors. F5 Advanced WAF is a bit expensive. The customer was on a three-year plan and it was around $560,000."

"A yearly license for F5 Advanced WAF is expensive."

"There is an annual subscription for this solution."

"I am not sure about pricing but licenses are available on Google."

"As far as the pricing of F5 Advanced WAF I would rate it a four out of five depending on what features I am looking for. Imperva is more expensive."

"There are various plans available for Fortinet FortiWeb Cloud WAF as a Service, including a trial version."

"Licensing fees for this solution are paid on a yearly basis."

"Its price is fair. We have done a couple of deals where they were able to give some kind of discount to the customers. The price was initially high for the customers, but after a couple of negotiations, it came within their budget. They were happy with that."