We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Wallarm NG WAF 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)."The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"The interface is good."
"The customizable features are good."
"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."
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"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."
"If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."
"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."
"The solution can improve its price."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"We must monitor and clean up the WAF manually."
"The setup is complicated."
"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."
Earn 20 points
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Wallarm NG WAF is ranked 33rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF). AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Wallarm NG WAF 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 Wallarm NG WAF writes "Active threat detection and adaptive rules are the most valuable for us". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Wallarm NG WAF is most compared with Salt Security, Noname Security, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare and 42Crunch API Security Platform.
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.