AWS WAF vs Azure Front Door comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Azure Front Door
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
CDN (3rd), Microsoft Security Suite (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 16.2%, down from 17.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Front Door is 5.7%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
CDN
21.7%
Microsoft Security Suite
2.5%
 

Featured Reviews

KO
Aug 9, 2023
Easy to configure and stable solution
There is room for improvement in pricing. The pricing for each rule group is a bit too high. It's a monthly subscription, and it can get quite expensive for rules that I won't use for my application. For example, I might create a rule group that costs $10, and I only use one of the rules in the group. That's $10 for a rule that I'm not even using! So, the pricing could be more flexible, or there could be a way to get discounts for unused rules. So, AWS WAF should have a pay-as-you-go pricing model, where I can only pay for the rules that I use.
Renato Roque - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 28, 2023
Seamless global application delivery with features like efficient load balancing, web application firewall and robust traffic routing capabilities
 It serves as the primary means for our organization to make applications accessible securely over the internet. While we do have specific requirements for load balancing, our primary focus is leveraging it to securely and exclusively expose our applications to the internet We rely on external…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"The customized billing is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
 

Cons

"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"The price could be improved."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"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."
"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."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's cheap."
"AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
"It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
"The solution's cost depends on the use cases."
"The price is average."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven or eight out of ten."
"It has a variable pricing scheme."
"The solution is affordable."
"The pricing of the solution is good."
"It is on a pay-as-you-go basis."
"The transition to the premium tier has led to increased costs, making it more expensive than the classic tier."
"The product is expensive."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
792,694 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF is t...
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 AWS WAF?
The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Front Door?
The transition to the premium tier has led to increased costs, making it more expensive than the classic tier. However, we acknowledge that this pricing reflects additional features and capabilities.
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
Azure Front-Door
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Azure Front Door and other solutions. Updated: July 2024.
792,694 professionals have used our research since 2012.