Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS WAF vs Tenable.io Web Application Scanning comparison

 

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
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (1st)
Tenable.io Web Application ...
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

AWS WAF and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. AWS WAF is designed for Web Application Firewall (WAF) and holds a mindshare of 9.9%, down 13.5% compared to last year.
Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.3% mindshare, down 1.5% since last year.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kavin Kalaiarasu - PeerSpot reviewer
AWS's cloud-native security simplifies rule enforcement but needs better DDoS integration
The dashboarding could be improved, and the default metrics provided by AWS WAF could be upgraded. The rate at which AWS updates their managed rule sets could be better. Features like bot protection or DDoS mitigation, available with other WAF vendors, do not come natively with AWS WAF. Instead, they are part of AWS Shield. Providing DDoS protection as part of their WAF solution would be beneficial.
Harshal Deshmukh - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple tool to use, good dashboard capabilities and offers asset criticality ratings
It has good dashboard capabilities and gives good results with priority ratings, asset criticality ratings, and exposure scores for vulnerabilities. It also provides automated web application scanning, which customers appreciate because it doesn't disturb the web application or hamper the business. While testing the web application, sometimes it happens that the website or application goes down. But with Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, it doesn't affect the business. It has good unified web application scanning and exposure management.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is stable."
"The customizable features are good."
"The solution is stable."
"The customized billing is the most valuable feature."
"AWS WAF acts as a barrier, analyzing HTTP communications between external users and web applications."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"The solution is stable."
"It is fully automated."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which provides a good level of detail with respect to vulnerabilities."
"All the features are valuable to us as they offer cutting-edge scanning methods and address the latest issues with a contemporary approach. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is highly stable. I rate it a nine out ten. Since the solution works on the Cloud, it's highly scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. The setup of the solution is straightforward. The Return on Investment is substantial. I recommend the solution to all."
"Our customers adopt this solution because of the replication testing and the vulnerability assessment it can do. It is a multi-faceted product."
"It has good unified web application scanning and exposure management."
"We can get detailed information about vulnerabilities."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is very easy to use."
 

Cons

"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"The rate at which AWS updates their managed rule sets could be better. Features like bot protection or DDoS mitigation, available with other WAF vendors, do not come natively with AWS WAF."
"I'd like to see improvements in its usability and functionality. I'm also concerned about being too dependent on the cloud provider's WAF version. For security, using multiple vendors and not putting all our eggs in one basket is better."
"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"There is a lot of innovation talk, however, implementation might be lacking."
"Compatibility and integration functionalities, especially with services like Kafka for event-driven messaging, could be better."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is not very user-friendly and you need a lot of information to get proper reports. The tool's support is not very responsive."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning could improve by offering faster fuzzing."
"The market is standard for vulnerability scanning, however, the posture can be improved through Tenable's prioritization engine."
"The platform's technical support services could be better."
"The cloud and the on-premises versions have their own controllers, and there is no way to centrally manage controllers."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"They have a general dashboard for web application scanning, but the dashboards and reporting can be improved. They probably have some features in their roadmap."
"I would like for them to add proxy filtering, where you can transfer and alter the package. It is fully automated. Other web application testers programs are actually proxy software, and the proxy software gives you the flexibility of modifying the outgoing package, which will actually help you in exploiting any vulnerability in detail."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
"The price is average."
"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."
"There are no separate licensing costs we pay for since it is included in the plan we purchase."
"The price of AWS WAF is reasonable, it is not expensive and it is not cheap."
"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."
"The solution's cost depends on the use cases."
"It's an annual subscription."
"It follows the same licensing scheme as Tenable.io and Tenable. sc."
"I rate the product's pricing a four out of ten."
"The pricing is okay."
"The price of the solution is reasonable compared to the competitors. The license cost is based on the number of users and the annual usage."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is expensive for small businesses."
"The application is extremely affordable. There are no additional costs involved with licensing. We switched to Tenable.io Web Application Scanning from other solutions due to pricing."
"For Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, it comes to around 6,50,000 Indian rupees, plus taxes."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 do you like most about AWS WAF?
The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
What do you like most about Tenable.io Web Application Scanning?
The most effective feature of the product is the ability to scan the entire environment.
What needs improvement with Tenable.io Web Application Scanning?
Improvements could include providing coverage reports in the free version and features related to security reports. Also, enhancing technical support would be beneficial as there is room for improv...
What advice do you have for others considering Tenable.io Web Application Scanning?
I would recommend Tenable.io Web Application Scanning as it provides us with good reports, which help improve our code base, despite the lack of financial benefits. Overall, I would rate it seven o...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
IMDEX
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: June 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.