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

AWS WAF vs SiteLock comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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)
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SiteLock
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
37th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (47th), CDN (16th), Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 3.9%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SiteLock is 1.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF3.9%
SiteLock1.8%
Other94.3%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
it_user723534 - PeerSpot reviewer
Guitarist at a media company with self employed
It's not easy to get out once you're in
Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information. When you sign on for the paid service, Sitelock: * Hides (makes it difficult to find) that they default the auto-renew (you can't sign up without agreeing to have them automatically bill your credit card every year). * Hides (makes it difficult to find) how to stop auto-renew: * You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses. * You have to hunt their website for a link (in extremely small font) to the page which contains instructions for cancelling. * When you get to that page, turns out it's the 5000+ word "Terms of Service" document, which you have to scour to find a phone number. Then, you have to call and get put on hold (or if you like, they will call you back three days later). Once you finally get through, you have to jump through a lot of security hoops. All of the above, just to cancel the service. Their product may or may not be OK, but be forewarned that with Sitelock, it's not easy to get out once you're in.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AWS WAF has positively impacted our organization by improving our defense from our WAF firewalling the web application, including production and non-production environments."
"The cloud-native nature of AWS is crucial since most of our workload is in AWS, making AWS WAF native to Amazon Web Services."
"As a basic WAF, it's better than having nothing, so if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"It is Amazon; everything is scalable, and it is beyond what we need."
"AWS WAF has helped to strengthen the security of my environment; it has also helped to improve the posture of our application, prevent all DDoS attacks and unnecessary traffic and SQL injection that is reducing the performance of our application."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"It seems to provide a bit of useful information on website health."
"Not only did SiteLock's website scanner find the issue with my website, but with SiteLock I was able to implement a security system to prevent future breaches."
 

Cons

"AWS WAF's signature sets have room for improvement due to false positives."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the conditions view which had geo match, IP sets and etc."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"There is a lot of innovation talk, however, implementation might be lacking."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"The solution can improve its price."
"Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are different scale options available for WAF."
"For Kubernetes microservices, AWS is more expensive compared to OCI. AWS costs approximately 70 cents per hour, while OCI is 50% cheaper."
"Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge. It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The price is average."
"It's an annual subscription."
"The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
"AWS WAF has reasonable pricing."
"It has a variable pricing scheme."
"You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Construction Company
17%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Transportation Company
6%
 

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 do you recommend for a securing Web Application?
That's one of the most critical questions any development team faces! Securing a web application requires a layered approach, not a single tool. Here is a quick breakdown of what to recommend: In...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
galaxyguitar.com, robertasinc.com, indiarunning.com, comprarenpr.com, idbasolutions.com, newgrip.com
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. SiteLock and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.