We performed a comparison between AWS 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 most valuable feature is the addition of managed tools that help us create customizable rules. In case we want to block a particular request, we can make use of those rules."
"Their technical support has been quite good."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The solution offers good protection."
"DDoS protection is a valuable feature that works efficiently."
"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."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features we have found in the solution is protection against attacks from botnet networks and the requests that these remote networks can generate that are blocked from our servers. That frees us from having to deal with that traffic."
"Cloud WAF's interface is easy to use and protects us from OWASP Top Ten threats. Our dev team do QA checks on applications before they go live, but Cloud WAF creates an additional security layer on our website."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service is user-friendly and easy to deploy."
"The solution requires very little maintenance; we install it, it works without any problems, is reliable, and we can almost forget about it."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"We should be able to do proper whitelisting."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"The primary area for improvement is in issue detection and understanding whether a log is a false positive. It can sometimes be a challenge to take the data of a given security event and determine if it's a genuine threat using a Wiki etc."
"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."
"The implementation was hit or miss for the first few months. They did some tweaking and, since then, there have been no problems."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service should provide SSL certificates for its hosting customers."
"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."
"We've had some issues with putting certificates in."
"The connection between the front and back ends could be improved."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service has limited integrations, and I would like to see it integrate with our use of Azure DevOps."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Radware Cloud WAF Service is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Radware Cloud WAF Service is rated 8.6. 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 Cloud WAF Service writes "Serves as a comprehensive solution for both our current and prospective customers, generating revenue for us". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fastly, whereas Radware Cloud WAF Service is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Imperva DDoS, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS 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.