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."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
"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."
"The solution requires very little maintenance; we install it, it works without any problems, is reliable, and we can almost forget about it."
"The isolation feature is the most important one because everything is going directly to Radware first and then it goes into our system. What we get is the filtered version of everything that would otherwise come directly to us."
"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."
"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."
"Geo-blocking is one of the most valuable features we use the most; most of our users are in North, Central, and South America, so we use geo-blocking to block access from other countries."
"The solution offers good protection."
"We need more support as we go global."
"The setup is complicated."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"They have a portal for webinar training but because we are in a Spanish-speaking country, it is difficult for us to watch them. Not all of us are fluent in English, but most of the courses and webinars are in English. That part could be improved..."
"The lower-level technical team at Radware could improve their approach to problem-solving as they sometimes are very slow."
"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."
"The implementation was hit or miss for the first few months. They did some tweaking and, since then, there have been no problems."
"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."
"We've had some issues with putting certificates in."
"The integration part could be better."
"The primary area for improvement is in issue detection and understanding whether a log is a false positive. It can sometimes be a challenge to take the data of a given security event and determine if it's a genuine threat using a Wiki etc."
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 15 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, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and F5 Silverline Managed Services, 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.
