Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS WAF vs Azure Web Application Firewall comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Azure Web Application Firewall
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 13.8%, down from 15.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 5.4%, up from 5.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kesharwani - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 24, 2024
A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks
We use AWS WAF to protect our application from different kinds of attacks. We use AWS WAF for retail customers Our retail application is vulnerable to a lot of bot attacks. AWS WAF helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection that happen within the retail industry. The…
Thomas Zebar - PeerSpot reviewer
May 4, 2023
Is priced well, is stable, and the initial setup is straightforward
I previously used Barracuda Web Application Firewall. I hope that Azure Web Application Firewall will look at other products and replicate some of their functionality. Azure WAF is doing great because it is designed to host web applications in Azure. However, it can be improved with other services. Barracuda is the most advanced firewall in the industry, so Azure WAF could pick some of its features and replicate them into its own application firewall. Barracuda WAF was deployed in parallel to the traffic. Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic. It should support both public and private points of presence. Additionally, like Barracuda, Azure WAF should have an inspection engine that covers not just Microsoft products, but also products from other manufacturers. This would be a great addition to the product and would increase its security functionality.

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 feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The interface is good."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"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."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
 

Cons

"The pricing model is complicated."
"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."
"We must monitor and clean up the WAF manually."
"The product must provide more features."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF 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."
"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The knowledge base could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of AWS WAF is reasonable, it is not expensive and it is not cheap."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven or eight out of ten."
"The price is average."
"It's cheap."
"AWS WAF has reasonable pricing."
"There are no separate licensing costs we pay for since it is included in the plan we purchase."
"AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
"We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
814,325 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF is t...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What do you like most about AWS WAF?
The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?
The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month. This cost is one of the main reasons why we selected Azure Web Application Firewall. It provides enough functionality for our needs.
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
Microsoft is constantly working on improvements. We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls. Th...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Azure Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,325 professionals have used our research since 2012.