We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) 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."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."
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"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 capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"The customized billing is the most valuable feature."
"Fastly (Signal Sciences) integrates and tags the intermittent traffic based on patterns. It generates signals and provides them in a dashboard where we can view them and decide whether to allow or deny traffic. It's a more advanced and easy-to-navigate dashboard."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to set up the rules easily."
"When configuring a web application firewall using Signal Sciences, we configure a rule whereby no one except a few people can access the application."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pros →
"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."
"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"The areas that could be improved in Signal Sciences include the effectiveness of rules, as many didn't function optimally and required custom rule-writing to address bypasses for WAF."
"Fastly don't support caching for China users. That's the only feature lacking compared to Akamai."
"Even if we create some custom rules, Signal Sciences cannot capture some of the malicious traffic."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Cons →
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is ranked 28th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is rated 7.6. 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 The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) writes "A good solution to implement web application firewall for applications". 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 The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is most compared with Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Azure Web Application Firewall, Akamai App and API Protector and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) 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.