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."Rule groups are valuable."
"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."
"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 Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The interface is good."
"The customized billing is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service is user-friendly and easy to deploy."
"From a financial point of view, we no longer need to appropriate more horsepower to our backend web servers constantly to service these requests because Cloud WAF is preventing malicious bots from accessing our web page. It reduced the load on our backend."
"Geo-blocking is one of the most valuable features we use the most; most of our users are in North, Central, and South America, so we use geo-blocking to block access from other countries."
"The solution requires very little maintenance; we install it, it works without any problems, is reliable, and we can almost forget about it."
"With the current visibility dashboard, we can now obtain insight into the nature of attacks, identify attackers, and detect top IP or threat regions."
"I particularly appreciate the low administrative burden of this solution, as well as the excellent monitoring tools."
"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 has several valuable features, with good support and a user-friendly GUI."
"The price could be improved."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The cost must be reduced."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"The solution can improve its price."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"The implementation was hit or miss for the first few months. They did some tweaking and, since then, there have been no problems."
"The lower-level technical team at Radware could improve their approach to problem-solving as they sometimes are very slow."
"We receive many reports from our security team of IPs flagged by our security tools, such as Palo Alto. I cannot add the file containing the IPs to get them blocked; instead, I have to contact Radware support and open a ticket for them to do it. I need to be able to block flagged IPs myself, as it currently takes more time to open a ticket, contact the support team, and wait four to six hours for a response. I want to be able to upload a file with 2,000-3,000 IPs in the console and then apply and save the configuration."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service should provide SSL certificates for its hosting customers."
"Radware does not have much online training available to help customers get the most out of this solution."
"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."
"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."
"Our only complaint is the reporting on the DDoS side. We also use Radware for on-premises DDoS protection and their Vision product. I just want to give paint you an example. We face so many Layer 3 and Layer 4 DDoS attacks on Cloud WAF. The reporting on those types of attacks can be improved."
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 15 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 Imperva DDoS, 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.