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

AWS WAF vs Radware Kubernetes WAF 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
Radware Kubernetes WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
32nd
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
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 Radware Kubernetes WAF is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF4.0%
Radware Kubernetes WAF0.6%
Other95.4%
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.
SandeepSingh18 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Administrator L2 at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Provides automated protection against web attacks and simplifies deployment with cost-effective pricing
Radware Kubernetes WAF protects our web applications from web-based attacks like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. It provides automation capabilities. For example, if a DDoS attack is happening, it automatically recognizes the attack and prevents it accordingly. Radware Kubernetes WAF provides automation that is effective in dealing with security threats.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"The solution is stable."
"AWS WAF helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection that happen within the retail industry."
"The automation of blocking for security attacks is valuable, with AWS applying rate limiting."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"One common use case is using detection protection for enhancing security models in AWS. Another use case is implementing log analysis and response recovery procedures for email services."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system."
"I would give Radware Kubernetes WAF a rating of 10 out of 10."
 

Cons

"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"The main difference with other similar products is the security efficiency against the type of attacks because normally Amazon works with certain types of attacks and is unable to deal with most of the more sophisticated new attacks that are now the market."
"Support wise, I don't think they are that good compared to individual vendors."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"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."
"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."
"If Radware provides a separate web service like those offered by vendors such as F5 and Imperva, that would be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
"The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The price of AWS WAF is expensive if you do not know how to manage your software up or down. I price of the solution is average amongst the other competitors but it would be better if it was less expensive."
"For Kubernetes microservices, AWS is more expensive compared to OCI. AWS costs approximately 70 cents per hour, while OCI is 50% cheaper."
"The price is average."
"The product’s pricing is reasonable."
"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.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Healthcare 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.
What needs improvement with Radware Kubernetes WAF?
If Radware provides a separate web service like those offered by vendors such as F5 and Imperva, that would be better.
What is your primary use case for Radware Kubernetes WAF?
We use Radware Kubernetes WAF to protect our web applications from web-based attacks like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. It provides an integrated web with load balancers but does not have...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

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: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.