We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Radware Alteon 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."What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"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."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"The stability of AWS WAF is valuable."
"The GUI was a valuable feature. It was uncomplicated and easy to use."
"I like the concept of self-service, that I can do everything on my own."
"I found the link load balancer and server load balancer are the most valuable."
"The features that mitigate attacks are very valuable."
"A user-friendly and reasonably priced solution."
"It is easy to expand. Our clients are enterprise-size."
"The device blocks threats and allows legitimate users to work correctly."
"I like the ADC feature and the global certificate feature."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"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."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"The setup is complicated."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"The product must provide more features."
"We’d like the solution to include more security features in the standard license."
"The interface implementation can be improved."
"Support is very important because if we get good support, we'll be able to sell and supply more numbers."
"We are in the process of updating our version of the solution, so judging what should be improved is difficult. But in some cases, the visualization takes a while, especially for mapping issues."
"I would like this solution to have an integration tool that will convert configuration from other software, into readable values for this product during implementation."
"We don't integrate anything with it because most things don't integrate with Radware. If it were F5, we could integrate it. We can integrate F5 with practically anything that integrates with a load balancer, but that's not the case with Alteon."
"Recently our team was talking about the things you can customize in Alteon and the level of programming that doing so demands. I would like to see more information on how to customize the programming and troubleshoot."
"Radware Alteon could improve the troubleshooting from the command line interface, they could do a better job making it easier."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 33 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. 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 Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". 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 Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and F5 Advanced WAF. See our AWS WAF vs. Radware Alteon 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.
