We compared AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
AWS WAF is praised for its effective protection, comprehensive logging capabilities, and customizable rule sets. The customer service is highly responsive and contributes to a positive experience. The return on investment has been positive, but there are areas for improvement in documentation and user-friendliness. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is commended for enhancing website security, user-friendly interface, and integration with other services. The customer service is efficient, and the pricing is competitive. However, users have noted a need for more customization options and improvements in response times and ease of use.
Features: AWS WAF stands out for its effective protection against web attacks, integration with other AWS services, and efficient management of multiple websites. In contrast, Cloudflare WAF is praised for its website security enhancement, user-friendly interface, and comprehensive reporting capabilities.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for AWS WAF was minimal and the process was smooth and straightforward. Users found the pricing affordable and the licensing flexible. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also had competitive pricing with straightforward setup costs and flexible licensing options., AWS WAF users have reported increased security, reduced risks, and improved protection against web threats, with cost savings and enhanced firewall management. Cloudflare's Web Application Firewall has resulted in significant financial gains.
Room for Improvement: The AWS WAF product could improve its documentation and instructions for users with limited technical expertise. Users also find difficulties in setting up and managing rules and desire a more user-friendly interface. In contrast, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall would benefit from enhancements in customization options, response times, and ease of use. Users want more flexibility in tailoring firewall settings and quicker notifications and responses. The interface is also seen as complex and needing simplification for a better user experience.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for AWS WAF emphasize the importance of considering the duration for different phases of implementing a new tech solution. This includes both deployment and setup, which may vary in timeframes. On the other hand, the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall reviews highlight that the duration can vary among users, with some spending three months on deployment and a week on setup, while others only require a week for both. It is necessary to evaluate the context in which these terms are used and consider them collectively., AWS WAF's customer service and support have consistently been praised for their excellence and responsiveness. Users receive prompt assistance and solutions to queries, while the knowledgeable support team ensures overall customer satisfaction. In comparison, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also has excellent customer service, with responsive and efficient assistance, addressing issues promptly and providing clear instructions. Users feel supported and confident with Cloudflare's customer service.
The summary above is based on 41 interviews we conducted recently with AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"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 interface is good."
"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."
"I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"We extensively use the solution every day. The solution is very stable; we haven’t seen any glitches."
"It protects web applications efficiently."
"I'm highly satisfied. It's remarkably user-friendly, enabling me to quickly identify issues, and deploy solutions, and it offers the necessary features."
"It is a SaaS solution unlike much of the competition."
"The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration."
"The solution protects our application, which runs on the HTTP protocol, from DDoS attacks."
"The product has improved our security posture by blocking bad actors."
"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"AWS WAF could improve by making the overall management easier. Many people that have started working with AWS WAF do not have an easy time. They should make it easy to use."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."
"The blocked logs are difficult to read at times."
"I have experienced some difficulties with Cloudflare's support as a customer based in India."
"A key challenge arises when dealing with numerous integrations with HVAC systems. Depending on the specifics, there might be some configuration mismatches, which necessitate specific support."
"They have some limitations with third-party integrations."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."
"The platform's control features related to real-time authentication and response time need improvement."
More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2. 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 Cloudflare Web Application Firewall writes "A cloud solution for web application firewall protection with rate-limiting, managed, and custom firewall rules". 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 Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai App and API Protector, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and NGINX App Protect. See our AWS WAF vs. Cloudflare 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.