We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Wallarm NG WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The ease of deployment of the product is valuable to me."
"The solution is stable."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"The interface is good."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."
"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."
"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."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"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 need more support as we go global."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"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 technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."
Earn 20 points
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 51 reviews while Wallarm NG WAF is ranked 32nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF). AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while Wallarm NG WAF 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 Wallarm NG WAF writes "Active threat detection and adaptive rules are the most valuable for us". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Wallarm NG WAF is most compared with Salt Security, Noname Security, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare and Imperva DDoS.
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.