We compared AWS WAF and Azure Web Application Firewall based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Both AWS WAF and Azure Web Application Firewall offer effective protection against web application attacks, with AWS WAF praised for its customizable rule sets, while Azure Web Application Firewall is commended for its ease of integration with existing infrastructures. AWS WAF's reliable performance and comprehensive logging capabilities stand out, while Azure Web Application Firewall is valued for its competitive pricing and efficient management features. Users appreciate AWS WAF's customer service, while Azure Web Application Firewall users highlight the instant updates and seamless integration process. Areas for improvement include better documentation and enhanced customization options for AWS WAF, and improved performance and configuration process for Azure Web Application Firewall.
Features: The valuable features of AWS WAF include effective protection against web application attacks, easy setup and configuration, comprehensive logging and monitoring, integration with other AWS services, flexible rules and policies, and efficient multi-website management. On the other hand, Azure Web Application Firewall offers strong attack protection, seamless integration, efficient management and monitoring, customizable firewall rules, instant updates, and comprehensive reporting.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost of AWS WAF is reported to be minimal, with a smooth and straightforward process. Users mention that the licensing is flexible and customizable. On the other hand, Azure Web Application Firewall also has a straightforward setup with a user-friendly integration process. The pricing is considered competitive and the licensing structure offers flexibility to cater to different business needs., The ROI from AWS WAF has led to increased security, reduced risks, cost savings, and improved efficiency in managing the web application firewall. In comparison, Azure Web Application Firewall offers significant improvements in website security, streamlined management, extensive features, and efficient web traffic monitoring and control. Users have reported substantial returns and reliability with Azure.
Room for Improvement: In terms of room for improvement, AWS WAF users have expressed the need for better documentation, more detailed instructions, a user-friendly interface for rule setup and management, and increased customization options. On the other hand, Azure Web Application Firewall could enhance its performance, improve the configuration process for easier setup and customization, and optimize integration with other Azure services for better overall performance and efficiency.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user reviews, the implementation of AWS WAF seems to have varying durations for deployment and setup phases, while Azure Web Application Firewall had a longer deployment phase of three months but had a shorter setup phase of one week., AWS WAF's customer service and support have consistently been praised for their excellent and highly responsive approach. Users appreciate the knowledgeable and helpful support team. Azure Web Application Firewall also offers prompt, effective, and reliable customer service.
The summary above is based on 33 interviews we conducted recently with AWS WAF and Azure Web Application Firewall users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"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."
"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 firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"The interface is good."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The cost must be reduced."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"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."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The management can be improved."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 51 reviews while Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4. 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 Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door, F5 Advanced WAF and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our AWS WAF vs. Azure 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.
