We performed a comparison between Cloudflare and F5 Advanced WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's very user-friendly."
"Cloudflare allows us to self-host services such as Rocket.Chat and Node-RED, in high-availability mode, thanks to round robin DNS which allows us to share one hostname between our two locations."
"The technical support is good."
"Easier http to https redirect using page rules"
"Cloudflare has many features."
"From what I've seen so far, there are no negatives to report as of yet"
"When using services like Heroku, Cloudflare is very useful for CNAME flattening. I also use it for their end-to-end SSL with TLS authentication on nginx for securing servers."
"We're using dynamic components to build flexible pages to create and manage Git merge requests for code and reviews."
"It can scale."
"We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country. It has a replication feature. Licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license."
"Provides good protection from attacks."
"It's flexible and powerful, and the users can input their own rules to the system."
"The solution uses AI to protect against botnet attacks."
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"The web application firewall itself is most valuable. It provides positive security and negative security. In negative security, it blocks a task such as cross-site scripting, code injection, etc. In positive security, it lets you specify and enforce things, such as the parameters allowed in username and password fields and the number of characters allowed in a field."
"This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most."
"Latencies are always a problem."
"In the last two years, there has been a certain amount of downtime when using the VDM."
"The reporting can definitely be improved to offer a lot more explanation on something that may have happened or has actually happened."
"It should be easier to collect the logs with companies like Sumo. However, based on my discussions with the salespeople, I understand that's how they make their money. With the enterprise product, they want people doing those kinds of enterprise features to do the logging. They want them to pay a lot of money, and that's where I have an issue with them. That should be a default. You should be able to get the log no matter what. The logging should be universal."
"Cloudflare could offer a better view or maybe dashboards of the main resources used in the client."
"DNS Management."
"It should have easier documentation for the configuration. It's very technical and people who aren't technical should also be able to do the configuration."
"Support response time could be improved."
"The Sandbox integration feature could be improved."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"We get false positives sometimes."
"The user interface (UI) seems a bit outdated. Making it more user-friendly would be beneficial."
"People who want to work with the device have to be pro in Linux"
"The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve on its funding for WAF features. There is a need to be more advanced WAF features."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the reporting. It's a bit difficult to populate, them. If you're not so familiar with the functions, such as where to find the logs and other settings."
Cloudflare is ranked 1st in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 56 reviews while F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 54 reviews. Cloudflare is rated 8.4, while F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cloudflare writes "It's easy to set up because you point the DNS to it, and it's working in under 15 minutes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". Cloudflare is most compared with Akamai, Azure Front Door, Imperva DDoS, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and AWS Shield, whereas F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fastly. See our Cloudflare vs. F5 Advanced WAF report.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection 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.
