We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Azure Front Door 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."If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"One common use case is using detection protection for enhancing security models in AWS. Another use case is implementing log analysis and response recovery procedures for email services."
"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."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL."
"The solution is stable."
"The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"The setup is complicated."
"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 price could be improved."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Azure Front Door is rated 8.8. 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 Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and Windows Azure CDN. See our AWS WAF vs. Azure Front Door 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.