We performed a comparison between Cloudflare and The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudflare, NETSCOUT, Akamai and others in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection."There are key things that are used for our enterprise customers, such as Lambda and DNS."
"Many websites require an SSL certificate because they sell stuff and want SSL. Cloudflare comes with an SSL certificate built in. It's automatic. You sign yourself up for Cloudflare, and an SSL certificate automatically protects your website. You don't necessarily need a certificate if you have a connection between your website and your host, the server, Cloudflare, and the host."
"The DDoS protection is the most valuable aspect of the solution."
"The most valuable feature of Cloudflare is the GUI. You are able to control the solution very well through the interface. There is a lot of functionality that is embedded in the service."
"Cloudflare offers CDN and DDoS protection. We have the front end, API, and database in how you structure applications."
"New and innovative way to protect the client's data."
"The solution is very good at mitigating threats."
"The web application firewall brought us good security and a view of the accesses/blocks of the entire domain and subdomain that were accessed both by region (country) and IPs."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to set up the rules easily."
"When configuring a web application firewall using Signal Sciences, we configure a rule whereby no one except a few people can access the application."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pros →
"It would be good if Cloudflare could have more servers for better traffic routing or an increase in the traffic routed. This is what I'd like to improve in Cloudflare."
"Sometimes their more advanced caching tools can cause higher first-byte times and problems with JavaScript."
"We're facing challenges due to an upgrade in the machine learning model. The problem arises from some users abusing the APIs, resulting in an influx of suspicious traffic. Cloudflare's learning model mistakenly identifies this traffic as human. Consequently, it assigns it a higher trust score, akin to legitimate human traffic, causing complications in our architecture. Previously, such traffic would have been categorized as suspicious, enabling us to apply appropriate blocking rules. However, we encounter difficulties distinguishing between genuine and suspicious traffic with the new categorization. Despite these challenges, overall, Cloudflare remains the preferred solution compared to Azure, AWS CloudFront, and Google Cloud Armor."
"Although I think it's quite good, it doesn't provide me with all the features I would expect to have if I were using Imperva."
"I think the APIs are a little bit hard for us to work with. The APIs could be more open so that we could integrate better with our SolarWinds or our monitoring solution."
"For the free and Pro plans, Cloudflare could use a simple bot to provide information to users. This would improve support, especially for less advanced users who utilize the free components."
"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."
"Cloudflare does not have an on-premise solution. If they had different approaches they could be better suited to accommodate more customers, such as on-premise and hybrid deployments. For example, hybrid deployments would be useful where you could move the traffic from the enterprise to the cloud."
"The areas that could be improved in Signal Sciences include the effectiveness of rules, as many didn't function optimally and required custom rule-writing to address bypasses for WAF."
"Even if we create some custom rules, Signal Sciences cannot capture some of the malicious traffic."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Cons →
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cloudflare is ranked 1st in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 56 reviews while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is ranked 28th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews. Cloudflare is rated 8.4, while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is rated 7.0. 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 The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) writes "A good solution to implement web application firewall for applications". Cloudflare is most compared with Akamai, Azure Front Door, Imperva DDoS, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and AWS Shield, whereas The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is most compared with AWS WAF, Akamai App and API Protector, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Azure Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall.
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.