We compared AWS WAF and Azure Web Application Firewall based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Both AWS WAF and Azure Web Application Firewall offer effective protection against web application attacks, with AWS WAF praised for its customizable rule sets, while Azure Web Application Firewall is commended for its ease of integration with existing infrastructures. AWS WAF's reliable performance and comprehensive logging capabilities stand out, while Azure Web Application Firewall is valued for its competitive pricing and efficient management features. Users appreciate AWS WAF's customer service, while Azure Web Application Firewall users highlight the instant updates and seamless integration process. Areas for improvement include better documentation and enhanced customization options for AWS WAF, and improved performance and configuration process for Azure Web Application Firewall.
Features: The valuable features of AWS WAF include effective protection against web application attacks, easy setup and configuration, comprehensive logging and monitoring, integration with other AWS services, flexible rules and policies, and efficient multi-website management. On the other hand, Azure Web Application Firewall offers strong attack protection, seamless integration, efficient management and monitoring, customizable firewall rules, instant updates, and comprehensive reporting.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost of AWS WAF is reported to be minimal, with a smooth and straightforward process. Users mention that the licensing is flexible and customizable. On the other hand, Azure Web Application Firewall also has a straightforward setup with a user-friendly integration process. The pricing is considered competitive and the licensing structure offers flexibility to cater to different business needs., The ROI from AWS WAF has led to increased security, reduced risks, cost savings, and improved efficiency in managing the web application firewall. In comparison, Azure Web Application Firewall offers significant improvements in website security, streamlined management, extensive features, and efficient web traffic monitoring and control. Users have reported substantial returns and reliability with Azure.
Room for Improvement: In terms of room for improvement, AWS WAF users have expressed the need for better documentation, more detailed instructions, a user-friendly interface for rule setup and management, and increased customization options. On the other hand, Azure Web Application Firewall could enhance its performance, improve the configuration process for easier setup and customization, and optimize integration with other Azure services for better overall performance and efficiency.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user reviews, the implementation of AWS WAF seems to have varying durations for deployment and setup phases, while Azure Web Application Firewall had a longer deployment phase of three months but had a shorter setup phase of one week., AWS WAF's customer service and support have consistently been praised for their excellent and highly responsive approach. Users appreciate the knowledgeable and helpful support team. Azure Web Application Firewall also offers prompt, effective, and reliable customer service.
The summary above is based on 33 interviews we conducted recently with AWS WAF and Azure Web Application Firewall users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"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."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"We preferred the product based on its cost. AWS WAF is an out-of-the-box solution and integrates with the AWS services that we use. It's natively integrated with AWS."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"The price could be improved."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"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 be more reliable."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"The management can be improved."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Azure Web Application Firewall 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 Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door, F5 Advanced WAF and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our AWS WAF vs. Azure Web Application Firewall 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.