Compare AWS WAF vs. Symantec Web Application Firewall

AWS WAF is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Symantec Web Application Firewall is ranked 19th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.8, while Symantec Web Application Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Makes sure files are protected, but the solution should be more proactive in detecting threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Web Application Firewall writes "Straightforward setup but the whole Web Security Gateway can be better". AWS WAF is most compared with Imperva Incapsula, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Akamai Kona Site Defender, whereas Symantec Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 BIG-IP and NGINX Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. Symantec Web Application Firewall report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use Symantec Web Application Firewall? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Symantec Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,242 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements.The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match.The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less.The customized billing is the most valuable feature.It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed.It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need.

Read more »

The setup was straightforward.The interface is user-friendly.

Read more »

Cons
It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security.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.For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad botsThe solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler.We need more support as we go global.The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on.

Read more »

I'm not convinced that it's necessary the best solution going forward in the future.It would be an improvement if the management dashboards were not reliant upon Java.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
There are different scale options available for WAF.There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.It's an annual subscription.

Read more »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
407,242 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
4,851
Comparisons
3,932
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
376
Avg. Rating
7.7
Views
1,122
Comparisons
1,052
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
244
Avg. Rating
7.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Also Known As
AWS Web Application FirewallSymantec WAF, Blue Coat Protecting Web Applications
Learn
Amazon
Video Not Available
Symantec
Overview

AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

The Symantec Web Application Firewall (WAF) enables you to secure and accelerate your web applications.

Offer
Learn more about AWS WAF
Learn more about Symantec Web Application Firewall
Sample Customers
eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Information Not Available
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company37%
Media Company16%
Comms Service Provider12%
Retailer7%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Symantec Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,242 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.