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

AWS WAF vs Radware Bot Manager comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (1st)
Radware Bot Manager
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Bot Management (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Services solutions, they serve different purposes. AWS WAF is designed for Web Application Firewall (WAF) and holds a mindshare of 13.7%, down 15.4% compared to last year.
Radware Bot Manager, on the other hand, focuses on Bot Management, holds 4.3% mindshare, up 3.4% since last year.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Bot Management
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kesharwani - PeerSpot reviewer
A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks
Integrating AWS WAF with other AWS services in our infrastructure is fairly easy. There are different tools through which we can do it. AWS WAF is a fairly easy solution. Users need to build a few rules by themselves based on the vulnerability attack within the application. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
ARMANDO CARRETO CASTRO - PeerSpot reviewer
It has an advantage over other solutions because it recognizes automated processes much more quickly
I like how Bot Manager intelligently detects automated tools. It allows some requests through, identifies them quickly, and contains them effectively. It has an advantage over other solutions because it understands much quicker that it is an automated process and begins to mitigate it a little more quickly. Almost all of our clients use the crypto mitigation algorithm. It is much more efficient because it’s very flat and plain when not encrypted. When we implemented it, the algorithm helped reduce the number of attacks on our clients' applications. With this type of solution, the attacker typically gives up after attempting because it doesn't affect the application. It has reduced the number of attempts by 30 to 40 percent.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"The solution is stable."
"The interface is good."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"I like how Bot Manager automatically detects when a suspicious user attempts to download content from your website."
"It's very good at categorizing the different types of bots, whether they're malicious or good. Bot is a very generic term. It could be good, it could be bad. Quite a lot of legitimate businesses are using bot-type services to just scrape the internet for information."
"Bot Manager's behavioral modeling and intelligence help us distinguish between harmless and malicious bots."
"The most valuable feature is the bot management itself and the way it has stopped bots from scraping our site, with its AI mechanism. Its ability to detect and mitigate bots is really good."
"Bot Manager is an excellent tool for analyzing traffic to detect suspicious patterns. It uses artificial intelligence to identify malicious behavior."
"I like how Bot Manager intelligently detects automated tools. If it allows some requests through, identifies them quickly, and contains them effectively. It has an advantage over other solutions because it understands much more quickly that it is an automated process and begins to mitigate it a little more quickly."
"The solution provides a rating of the sophistication of the bot attack."
 

Cons

"The product must provide more features."
"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."
"We must monitor and clean up the WAF manually."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"I'd like to see improvements in its usability and functionality. I'm also concerned about being too dependent on the cloud provider's WAF version. For security, using multiple vendors and not putting all our eggs in one basket is better."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"While the interface is simple, they could add the ability to upload lists of IPs in an Excel spreadsheet. If there are two or three IPs, it's easy to add them. You have a graphical option to log in and register your IP, but if you want to upload 50 IPs, it becomes more complicated because there are 50 steps. Also, Radware could simplify the implementation of SDK, which is a bit complicated. Radware should work on making the SDK part more efficient."
"I would like more ability to configure custom rules. Currently, I need to open a ticket with support to request a specific rule that isn't available in the console. In some cases, I don't have visibility into the logs or they are too complicated to analyze."
"It would be beneficial to have a link from the WAF to the Bot Manager portal available so we do not have to log in again."
"Bot Manager is doing its job, but I think the behavioral modeling could be improved by adding fingerprinting and automation. Remediation should be automated so that it doesn't require any intervention by the user."
"Radware Bot Manager is a little costly but not too expensive. It's in the middle."
"It would be good to have more integrations. It's very hard to get data in and out of their portal. It doesn't have any integrations with any of our tools, such as our SIEM tool. It only depends on emails. Having that tied into the warehouse, SIEM, and maybe our on-call tools would be very helpful because it would just give us a holistic picture of everything."
"We're missing links to their modules for installation and configuration. They have most of them available already, but there were situations for mobile applications that, when they released a new version, were not stable. We had to ask them to send a link by email, and that could be made accessible in the portal."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's cheap."
"Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge. It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
"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 has reasonable pricing."
"AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
"The price of AWS WAF is reasonable, it is not expensive and it is not cheap."
"The product is moderately priced."
"For Kubernetes microservices, AWS is more expensive compared to OCI. AWS costs approximately 70 cents per hour, while OCI is 50% cheaper."
"It is fairly priced."
"We negotiated a decent price with Radware that fits into our budget. It's a five-year license, so we get a good price and don't need to renew for several years."
"We pay a fair price for each application we wish to protect."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 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%
Retailer
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Media Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

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 Radware Bot Manager?
Radware Bot Manager is a little costly but not too expensive. It's in the middle.
What needs improvement with Radware Bot Manager?
While the interface is simple, they could add the ability to upload lists of IPs in an Excel spreadsheet. If there are two or three IPs, it's easy to add them. You have a graphical option to log in...
What is your primary use case for Radware Bot Manager?
We are a company that serves clients like Telmex and Telcel. We use Bot Manager to defend their sites from threats that focus their attack on automated processes that try to achieve denial of servi...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
ShieldSquare, ShieldSquare Bot Mitigation and Bot Management
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Pearson, Zulily, Purch, Groupe PSA, Yellow Pages, Axel Springer, Dorman, Penske, SeLoger.com, trovaprezzi.it
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.