AWS WAF vs Sucuri comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
21st
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection (19th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (12th)
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the market share of AWS WAF is 18.1% and it increased by 12.6% compared to the previous year. The market share of Sucuri is 1.0% and it increased by 30.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection
1.6%
 

Featured Reviews

Manikandan-R - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 7, 2024
Sends useful alerts and enables to automate tasks by creating rules
We use Managed Rules mostly ALB is integrated with WAF. When ALB spikes up, we know there’s something wrong. Usually, bots attack the applications. Rule groups are valuable. We use it for DDoS. We do customizations with the help of Managed Rules in AWS. We use AWS WAF’s API to automate security…
WA
Sep 29, 2023
Effectively prevents security risks and hacking attempts on websites, providing robust protection
I'm currently using it to prevent security risk attacks and hacking on my websites. We use the solution to protect our main website, which has two parts: a Web Application Firewall and a service to remove infection. We also use the part that sends us information about new risk updates to our site…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"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."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
 

Cons

"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"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."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"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."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven or eight out of ten."
"The price of AWS WAF is reasonable, it is not expensive and it is not cheap."
"AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
"It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
"AWS WAF has reasonable pricing."
"It has a variable pricing scheme."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
787,383 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
Educational Organization
44%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Media Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF is t...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What do you like most about AWS WAF?
The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
What do you like most about Sucuri?
The initial setup was very easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sucuri?
The pricing is very reasonable. Sucuri offer other features as an add-on, such as backup, but these have an additional cost. We host the sites ourselves, so I don't take it because it was redundant.
What needs improvement with Sucuri?
The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection. In future releases, perhaps Sucuri could...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: June 2024.
787,383 professionals have used our research since 2012.