No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AWS WAF vs Indusface AppTrana comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Indusface AppTrana
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
30th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (19th), Bot Management (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 3.9%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Indusface AppTrana is 0.8%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF3.9%
Indusface AppTrana0.8%
Other95.3%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
Arshad Nr - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security Consultant at CyberNxt Solutions LLP
Provides comprehensive executive vulnerability scanning report for applications
Dashboards are very helpful for showcasing Top 5 attacked applications, Top 5 Vulnerable applications, and Top 5 Vulnerabilities affected in Applications. It helped me to prioritize the resources to secure and showcase the same to management. We don't need to analyze manually to identify all the applications and logs to find top priorities. The Apptrana helped to identify it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The biggest benefit of AWS WAF for us is to filter malicious requests, so we can protect our environment and application from malicious actors."
"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."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"AWS WAF acts as a barrier, analyzing HTTP communications between external users and web applications."
"AWS WAF has helped to strengthen the security of my environment; it has also helped to improve the posture of our application, prevent all DDoS attacks and unnecessary traffic and SQL injection that is reducing the performance of our application."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"AppTrana helped us to protect the public-hosted Web, API, and Mobile applications by acting as a strong WAF solution which has Machine learning compatibility that analyzes and blocks the Behavior DDoS attacks."
"We use Indusface AppTrana as a firewall."
 

Cons

"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"AWS WAF can be improved by not being too sensitive for some data because with some XML, it is sometimes very sensitive."
"The solution can improve its price."
"The complexity of deploying turnkey solutions could be simplified."
"Compatibility and integration functionalities, especially with services like Kafka for event-driven messaging, could be better."
"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."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"The solution should add an enhanced dashboard to make it easy to navigate."
"AppTrana should improve its backend and frontend connections and loading speed. It is slower compared to other cloud solutions and sometimes it does not sync properly with front-end options and backend."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For our infrastructure, we probably pay around $16,000 per month for AWS WAF. Because alternative WAF solutions provide even more features, I think the AWS WAF is a bit pricey"
"AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
"The pricing is good and manageable."
"You need an additional AWS subscription for this product if you are buying a managed tool."
"It's cheap."
"There are different scale options available for WAF."
"For Kubernetes microservices, AWS is more expensive compared to OCI. AWS costs approximately 70 cents per hour, while OCI is 50% cheaper."
"The price of AWS WAF is expensive if you do not know how to manage your software up or down. I price of the solution is average amongst the other competitors but it would be better if it was less expensive."
"Indusface AppTrana is an affordable and cost-effective solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
912,930 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise28
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS WAF?
AWS WAF is affordable; it depends on the number of rules you apply. The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
What needs improvement with Indusface AppTrana?
AppTrana should improve its backend and frontend connections and loading speed. It is slower compared to other cloud solutions and sometimes it does not sync properly with front-end options and bac...
What is your primary use case for Indusface AppTrana?
I have used AppTrana for scanning and identifying vulnerabilities in APIs web applications and mobile applications, and it was used as WAF solution also for protecting the hosted Applications. AppT...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
AppTrana
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Shoppers Stop, TCS
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Indusface AppTrana and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
912,930 professionals have used our research since 2012.