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

AWS WAF vs Sucuri comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
22nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection (18th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 13.7%, down from 15.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 0.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

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.
David Shlingbaum - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple solution and good WAF
Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section. Users get errors or EBAs, and if they want to read about it, they need to find it in the help section of the site. It would be more helpful to allow users to see more information and tips immediately from within the alert.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AWS WAF acts as a barrier, analyzing HTTP communications between external users and web applications."
"The solution is stable."
"The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"The customizable features are good."
"The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
 

Cons

"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"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."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"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 product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"The price could be improved."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
"The solution's cost depends on the use cases."
"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."
"The price is average."
"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"
"The price of AWS WAF is reasonable, it is not expensive and it is not cheap."
"AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
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%
Educational Organization
45%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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 do you like most about Sucuri?
The initial setup was very easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sucuri?
The pricing is very reasonable. Sucuri offer other features as an add-on, such as backup, but these have an additional cost. We host the sites ourselves, so I don't take it because it was redundant.
What needs improvement with Sucuri?
The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection. In future releases, perhaps Sucuri could...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.