No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AWS WAF vs R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
R&S Web Application Firewal...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
50th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 4.0%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF4.0%
R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll)0.5%
Other95.5%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2849304 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Cloud Security at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Centralized web firewalling has reduced our attack surface and protects multi‑cloud applications
AWS WAF can be improved by not being too sensitive for some data because with some XML, it is sometimes very sensitive. When we upload videos or photos, it is flagged as a malicious pattern, and sometimes it is not sensitive enough because some query patterns that have the capability to perform malicious actions still result in false positives from AWS. It would be better for AWS WAF if it not only had logs but also specific payloads or something that directly included the specific logs so we can have more detail in our analysis. I think it should be better if they improve their capabilities in reducing the attack surface and also have better visibility for OWASP top 10 web applications and the API. Regarding AWS WAF's AI capabilities, its governance and security are very good because our attack surface is mostly reduced. The new dashboard is a bit complicated; it is easier for non-technical users, but for technical professionals, it is sometimes confusing. While the security itself is good and the governance is good, I think it needs to improve the UI or the flow itself. The accuracy and reliability of AWS WAF's output is better than others. With the free version, it has a good filter with the attack surface and the reliability is good, but sometimes we need to adjust. With the free version, we also have to pay some amount of money if the number exceeds the default provided by AWS.
SS
General Manager at 3R Technologie
Geo-localization and IP reputation help to keep our clients secure and more available
The area that should be improved is licensing. When using an active/passive cluster, we have to pay 70% of the master appliance and license for the passive server that does not work. Since we know that only one server works at a time, we should pay only one license for the appliances and for the support as well. In my opinion, this has to be improved. If possible, the client software should be a web application instead of downloading software for the management. This can avoid login problems when they update or patch.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"One of the most valuable features of AWS WAF is its ability to filter web app traffic, allowing us to specify conditions such as IP addresses and HTTP headers."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"AWS WAF acts as a barrier, analyzing HTTP communications between external users and web applications."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"AWS WAF helps us a lot to make sure that the right customer gets the right access to the system."
"By publishing the application without fear, my customer has created new revenue by making the website available anytime and anywhere."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
 

Cons

"Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment."
"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."
"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."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"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 area that should be improved is licensing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an annual subscription."
"AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
"It has a variable pricing scheme."
"For our infrastructure, we probably pay around $16,000 per month for AWS WAF. Because alternative WAF solutions provide even more features, I think the AWS WAF is a bit pricey"
"AWS WAF has reasonable pricing."
"The product is moderately priced."
"The price is average."
"We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
921,338 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise28
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS WAF?
AWS WAF is affordable; it depends on the number of rules you apply. The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
Which Web Application Firewall (WAF) would you recommend? R&S or Imperva?
Imperva is a strong choice, given their security focus and ongoing R&D into the product in areas such as bot management.
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
Rohde & Schwarz Web Application Firewall, R&S WAF, DenyAll Web Application Security
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva, Radware, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: November 2026.
921,338 professionals have used our research since 2012.