Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Radware Cloud WAF Service vs The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Radware Cloud WAF Service
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (po...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
27th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Radware Cloud WAF Service is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is 1.0%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Tanuj-Garg - PeerSpot reviewer
API discovery, bot defense, and DDoS capability optimize application security and development
I see areas in Radware Cloud WAF Service for improvement, specifically in its initial tuning period, because the machine learning model takes two to three weeks for baseline behavior establishment. Closely monitoring alerts during this period is essential to avoid false positives. There's an alert noise issue; during the early stages, we received a high volume of alerts for minor issues, requiring collaboration with the SOC team to fine-tune thresholds and concentrate on genuine threats. The documentation is not up to par, as while the platform's system is robust, the documentation, particularly for API integration, could be more developer-friendly with real-world use cases.
Archana Heeralal - PeerSpot reviewer
A good solution to implement web application firewall for applications
There are some lags in Signal Sciences for the web application firewalls. Even if we create some custom rules, Signal Sciences cannot capture some of the malicious traffic. There is a little bit of complexity with custom rules that should be removed. Signal Sciences should add a feature called rate limiting with multiple options, wherein I can create a rate limiting based on the cookie request or the IP.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Radware Cloud WAF Service is the visibility into attacks that are being cut off instantly."
"It has features such as API security that protect against advanced attacks, including business logic attacks. It comes with additional functionalities such as bot protection and AI-driven threat signatures, along with threat intelligence, making it much more than the traditional WAF that we have on-prem."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service offers better protection and can even provide significantly better security."
"The API Discovery is also very good because the application is outsourced, which means that we don't have the code. API Discovery allowed me to discover precisely how to orchestrate the API so that I could see the results."
"I like the reliability of the system since it's quite reliable."
"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."
"Radware Bot Manager has been very useful. If any user tries to save a password on a mobile or a browser, it blocks that. We can see all the details about the traffic and port requests."
"I particularly appreciate the low administrative burden of this solution, as well as the excellent monitoring tools."
"Fastly (Signal Sciences) integrates and tags the intermittent traffic based on patterns. It generates signals and provides them in a dashboard where we can view them and decide whether to allow or deny traffic. It's a more advanced and easy-to-navigate dashboard."
"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."
 

Cons

"The lower-level technical team at Radware could improve their approach to problem-solving as they sometimes are very slow."
"Radware's bot manager can be improved because it's very complicated to implement for apps. Radware could also add alerts by WhatsApp or Telegram. It only sends notifications via email or SMS."
"Some of the tools are a bit difficult to navigate, and the user interface could be more user-friendly."
"If we want to publish services to a limited number of providers and we only want those providers to connect, we need to forward those requests to the Radware support team and they apply them, but it takes some time."
"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."
"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 reporting features could be more intuitive with more real-time monitoring, which would help make faster decisions."
"The Cloud Portal has room for improvement."
"Even if we create some custom rules, Signal Sciences cannot capture some of the malicious traffic."
"Fastly don't support caching for China users. That's the only feature lacking compared to Akamai."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is fair; it's neither particularly cheap nor expensive."
"For the current market, the price for Radware Cloud WAF Service is exactly where we want it to be."
"We are paying $20,000 annually for six licenses that provide basic WAF functionality."
"I believe the prices are fair."
"I am not directly involved in pricing and setup cost discussions, but it seems that Radware offers a more cost-effective solution compared to F5. It is considered a good value for our budget."
"The price is a bulk average."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service falls within a mid-range price bracket compared to other web application firewall solutions."
"We evaluated other options and, if I remember correctly, one of them was Fortinet, but they didn't seem as effective as Radware. But the price was the biggest difference. Radware had the best price for our type of network and level of scaling."
"The product has an affordable cost."
"Signal Sciences is pretty cheap compared to other solutions."
"The pricing is 50% less than Akamai."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Educational Organization
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Radware Cloud WAF Service?
I would rate the cost around seven out of ten. Radware provides many different options, but it may not be affordable for companies that aren't large.
What needs improvement with Radware Cloud WAF Service?
I see areas in Radware Cloud WAF Service for improvement, specifically in its initial tuning period, because the machine learning model takes two to three weeks for baseline behavior establishment....
What is your primary use case for Radware Cloud WAF Service?
We are choosing Radware Cloud WAF Service over traditional WAF because it has API first behavioral protection, advanced bot defense, and layer 7 web DDoS capability. It was chosen because of the hy...
What do you like most about Signal Sciences?
The product's most valuable feature is its ability to set up the rules easily.
What needs improvement with Signal Sciences?
Fastly don't support caching for China users. That's the only feature lacking compared to Akamai.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Signal Sciences Next-Gen WAF, Signal Sciences RASP
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Chef, Adobe, Datadog, Etsy, GrubHub, Vimeo, SendGrid, Under Armour, Duo, AppNexus
Find out what your peers are saying about Radware Cloud WAF Service vs. The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.