We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"Their technical support has been quite good."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The customizable features are good."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"We need more support as we go global."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"The area that should be improved is licensing."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is ranked 33rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF). AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) writes "Geo-localization and IP reputation help to keep our clients secure and more available". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is most compared with Akamai App and API Protector.
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.