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.
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"We extensively use the solution every day. The solution is very stable; we haven’t seen any glitches."
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"The product has a valuable security control functionality."
"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."
"Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful."
"It protects web applications efficiently."
"We like that there's load balancing, firewall capabilities, DDoS protection, et cetera, all covered by Cloudflare."
"The product has improved our security posture by blocking bad actors."
"The price could be improved."
"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."
"One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies."
"AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process."
"We must monitor and clean up the WAF manually."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The blocked logs are difficult to read at times."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."
"The reporting could be more granular."
"Its stability could be better."
"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."
"Their documentation could be better. They don't have documentation that explains everything well. They have documentation for everything you're looking for, but they lack a single piece of documentation to tie everything together. As a new user or beginner, it took us a little bit of time to figure out how to put all these things in place."
"The accuracy of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could be improved by reducing the number of false-negative alerts."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."
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 Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, 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.
