We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall 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."It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The solution requires very little maintenance; we install it, it works without any problems, is reliable, and we can almost forget about it."
"From a financial point of view, we no longer need to appropriate more horsepower to our backend web servers constantly to service these requests because Cloud WAF is preventing malicious bots from accessing our web page. It reduced the load on our backend."
"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."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service has several valuable features, with good support and a user-friendly GUI."
"With the current visibility dashboard, we can now obtain insight into the nature of attacks, identify attackers, and detect top IP or threat regions."
"The solution offers good protection."
"One of the most valuable features we have found in the solution is protection against attacks from botnet networks and the requests that these remote networks can generate that are blocked from our servers. That frees us from having to deal with that traffic."
"It provides the first level of defense against external threats trying to come into the environment, but it's one of the many toolkits we use."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The management can be improved."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The lower-level technical team at Radware could improve their approach to problem-solving as they sometimes are very slow."
"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."
"There is a lot more that is expected from Radware's automated analytics for looking at events. There needs to be more context of where protection is required these days."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service should provide SSL certificates for its hosting customers."
"Radware does not have much online training available to help customers get the most out of this solution."
"They've changed their process for call logging. I suppose it's fine, but I used to be able to send emails in. They could also build up more local resiliency here in South Africa. They're working on that, so it isn't much of an issue now."
"The connection between the front and back ends could be improved."
"We've had some issues with putting certificates in."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while Radware Cloud WAF Service is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 15 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Radware Cloud WAF Service is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". 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". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas Radware Cloud WAF Service is most compared with AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Imperva DDoS, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.
