We performed a comparison between FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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."The initial setup was easy since it was possible to get remote support for the product."
"The machine learning feature reduces the false positives."
"The machine learning on FortiWeb WAF is valuable."
"It is good for web tracking applications."
"We use it to secure VMs and applications. It protects against DDoS attacks. It's very user-friendly."
"The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtration, web filter, application filter, and IPS."
"The platform's stability is good."
"The tool secures our critical applications, especially the mobile money application, which is often targeted by attacks. The solution provides rapid protection and has proven reliable against various threats."
"The solution requires very little maintenance; we install it, it works without any problems, is reliable, and we can almost forget about it."
"With the current visibility dashboard, we can now obtain insight into the nature of attacks, identify attackers, and detect top IP or threat regions."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service has several valuable features, with good support and a user-friendly GUI."
"What makes this a comprehensive offering from Radware is that it combines WAF, ADA, bot management, and API protection, which is not currently available from any other provider in the market."
"DDoS protection is a valuable feature that works efficiently."
"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."
"Geo-blocking is one of the most valuable features we use the most; most of our users are in North, Central, and South America, so we use geo-blocking to block access from other countries."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the support. The response time could be faster. Plus, they ask for a lot of information. It is not easy to get support."
"It would be good if the solution integrated with other solutions, like SAP."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's signature database updates could be improved."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) needs to update its attack prevention database."
"The product is complicated to set up."
"We have encountered issues with webhooks and management of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's on-premise version."
"The technical support team is bad."
"The documentation is poor."
"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."
"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 implementation was hit or miss for the first few months. They did some tweaking and, since then, there have been no problems."
"We've had some issues with putting certificates in."
"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 has limited integrations, and I would like to see it integrate with our use of Azure DevOps."
"The connection between the front and back ends could be improved."
"Our only complaint is the reporting on the DDoS side. We also use Radware for on-premises DDoS protection and their Vision product. I just want to give paint you an example. We face so many Layer 3 and Layer 4 DDoS attacks on Cloud WAF. The reporting on those types of attacks can be improved."
More FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) Pricing and Cost Advice →
FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is ranked 16th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 13 reviews while Radware Cloud WAF Service is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 15 reviews. FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is rated 8.0, while Radware Cloud WAF Service is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) writes "Protects internal applications and prevents target attacks ". 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". FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF and Azure Front Door, 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 FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.
