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

AWS WAF vs Indusface AppTrana comparison

 

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)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Indusface AppTrana
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
26th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (21st), Bot Management (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 5.8%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Indusface AppTrana is 0.4%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
AWS WAF5.8%
Indusface AppTrana0.4%
Other93.8%
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

"The cloud-native nature of AWS is crucial since most of our workload is in AWS, making AWS WAF native to Amazon Web Services."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"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."
"AWS WAF helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection that happen within the retail industry."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"The features I find most useful in AWS WAF are that we can integrate and write custom regex rules where we can specify URLs or links that cannot be accessed by certain countries or specific IPs."
"The customizable features are good."
"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

"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."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"AWS WAF can be improved if the dashboard is enhanced in such a way that everything will be displayed automatically without you going in there to see what is going on."
"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."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"The dashboarding could be improved, and the default metrics provided by AWS WAF could be upgraded."
"It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."
"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."
"The solution should add an enhanced dashboard to make it easy to navigate."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's cost depends on the use cases."
"The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
"It has a variable pricing scheme."
"The pricing is good and manageable."
"It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
"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."
"AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
"You need an additional AWS subscription for this product if you are buying a managed tool."
"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.
881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise26
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 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 Indusface AppTrana?
Indusface AppTrana is an affordable and cost-effective solution.
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...
 

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: December 2025.
881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.