Prisma Cloud and AWS WAF offer competitive pricing and effective security measures, with Prisma Cloud focusing on multi-cloud visibility and automation, while AWS WAF is highlighted for its web protection capabilities and seamless integration with other AWS services. Prisma Cloud users value the ease of use and advanced threat detection, while AWS WAF users appreciate the customization options and real-time monitoring features.
The summary above is based on 142 interviews we conducted recently with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and AWS WAF users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"The policies that come prepackaged in the tool have been very valuable to us. They're accurate and they provide good guidance as to why the policy was created, as well as how to remediate anything that violates the policy."
"Prisma scans things and shows all the vulnerabilities and packages that are vulnerable, and which layers, by default, have vulnerabilities. So developers can easily go into the package or a particular layer and make changes to their code. It's very transparent."
"As a pure-play CSPM, it is pretty good. From the data exposure perspective, Prisma Cloud does a fairly good job. Purely from the perspective of reading the conflicts, it is able to highlight any data exposures that I might be having."
"It has improved the overall collaboration between SecOps and DevOps. Now, instead of asking people to do something, it is a default offering in the CI/CD. There is less manual intervention and more seamless integration. It is why we don't have many dependencies across many teams, which is definitely a better state."
"It provides insights into potential vulnerabilities in our code, helping us identify and rectify issues before they can be exploited."
"I like Palo Alto's threat protection and Wi-Fi coverage. It has advanced features like DNS security and sandboxing. The automation capabilities are excellent."
"We are provided with a single tool to protect all of our cloud resources and applications without having to manage and reconcile compliance reports."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability monitoring, serverless access, container runtime features, and Defender."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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."
"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's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"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."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The pricing for the solution needs improvement."
"The area for improvement is less about the product and more about the upsell. If we've already agreed that we'd like your product x, y, or z, don't try to add fries to my burger. I don't need it."
"In terms of securing cloud-native development at build time, a lot of improvement is needed. Currently, it's more a runtime solution than a build-time solution. For runtime, I would rate it at seven out of 10, but for build-time there is a lot of work to be done."
"The first time I looked at Prisma Cloud, it took me a while to understand how to implement the integration or how to enable features by using the interface for integration. That portion can probably be improved."
"I would like Prisma Cloud to improve its mapping feature to increase usability."
"Getting new guys trained on using the solution requires some thought. If someone is already trained on Palo Alto then he's able to adapt quickly. But, if someone is coming from another platform such as Fortinet, or maybe he's from the system side, that is where we need some help. We need to find out if there is an online track or training that they can go to."
"There is room for improvement on the logging and monitoring front because it's still not as holistic as I would want it to be."
"Sometimes, when you assign subnets to regions, the IP address will jump from one location to another because it will automatically change substantially. Then, we need to add those IP subnets to our firewall for existing access. The need to update those subnets potentially causes maintenance or access issues. So far, we can only provide bigger customers with six subnets, and a small company may not be able to access those services."
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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 Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Akamai App and API Protector, whereas Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, AWS Security Hub and Qualys VMDR. See our AWS WAF vs. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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.
