We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Radware Cloud WAF Service based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"Their technical support has been quite good."
"The customized billing is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is stable."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"DDoS protection is a valuable feature that works efficiently."
"I particularly appreciate the low administrative burden of this solution, as well as the excellent monitoring tools."
"One of the most valuable features we have found in the solution is protection against attacks from botnet networks and the requests that these remote networks can generate that are blocked from our servers. That frees us from having to deal with that traffic."
"The API Discovery is also very good because the application is outsourced, which means that we don't have the code. API Discovery allowed me to discover precisely how to orchestrate the API so that I could see the results."
"The solution offers good protection."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring dashboard that we access through the portal."
"It provides the first level of defense against external threats trying to come into the environment, but it's one of the many toolkits we use."
"Geo-blocking is one of the most valuable features we use the most; most of our users are in North, Central, and South America, so we use geo-blocking to block access from other countries."
"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"The setup is complicated."
"We need more support as we go global."
"The Cloud Portal has room for improvement."
"If we want to publish services to a limited number of providers and we only want those providers to connect, we need to forward those requests to the Radware support team and they apply them, but it takes some time."
"The primary area for improvement is in issue detection and understanding whether a log is a false positive. It can sometimes be a challenge to take the data of a given security event and determine if it's a genuine threat using a Wiki etc."
"The integration part could be better."
"We receive many reports from our security team of IPs flagged by our security tools, such as Palo Alto. I cannot add the file containing the IPs to get them blocked; instead, I have to contact Radware support and open a ticket for them to do it. I need to be able to block flagged IPs myself, as it currently takes more time to open a ticket, contact the support team, and wait four to six hours for a response. I want to be able to upload a file with 2,000-3,000 IPs in the console and then apply and save the configuration."
"They've changed their process for call logging. I suppose it's fine, but I used to be able to send emails in. They could also build up more local resiliency here in South Africa. They're working on that, so it isn't much of an issue now."
"They have a portal for webinar training but because we are in a Spanish-speaking country, it is difficult for us to watch them. Not all of us are fluent in English, but most of the courses and webinars are in English. That part could be improved..."
"Radware Cloud WAF Service has limited integrations, and I would like to see it integrate with our use of Azure DevOps."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Radware Cloud WAF Service is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Radware Cloud WAF Service is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware Cloud WAF Service writes "Serves as a comprehensive solution for both our current and prospective customers, generating revenue for us". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fastly, whereas Radware Cloud WAF Service is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Imperva DDoS, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. Radware Cloud WAF Service report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
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.