"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"The solution is stable."
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"Fastly uses configuration versioning, where you can deploy a new version in less than one minute."
"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 technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"It is missing a "staging" platform to deploy a test configuration with all of the real settings, which would allow us to properly test before putting it into production."
Earn 20 points
AWS WAF is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 12 reviews while Fastly is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 1 review. AWS WAF is rated 7.6, while Fastly is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Use this product to make it possible to deploy web applications securely". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fastly writes "Good performance, powerful configuration capability, and helpful real-time graphics". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Azure Front Door, Akamai Kona Site Defender and Signal Sciences, whereas Fastly is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Amazon CloudFront and Imperva Incapsula.
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.
