We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Sucuri 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 stability of AWS WAF is valuable."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The solution is stable."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"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."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"We need more support as we go global."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Sucuri is ranked 21st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Sucuri 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 Sucuri writes "Simple solution and good WAF". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and F5 Silverline Managed Services, whereas Sucuri is most compared with Cloudflare, SiteLock, Comodo cWatch, StackPath WAF and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our AWS WAF vs. Sucuri 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.