Prisma Cloud and AWS WAF offer competitive pricing and effective security measures, with Prisma Cloud focusing on multi-cloud visibility and automation, while AWS WAF is highlighted for its web protection capabilities and seamless integration with other AWS services. Prisma Cloud users value the ease of use and advanced threat detection, while AWS WAF users appreciate the customization options and real-time monitoring features.
The summary above is based on 142 interviews we conducted recently with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and AWS WAF users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The solution is stable."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"The interface is good."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The CVEs are valuable because we used to have a tool to scan CVEs, at the language level, for the dependencies that our developers had. What is good about Prisma Cloud is that the CVEs are not only from the software layer, but from all layers: the language, the base image, and you also have CVEs from the host. It covers the full base of security."
"Prisma scans things and shows all the vulnerabilities and packages that are vulnerable, and which layers, by default, have vulnerabilities. So developers can easily go into the package or a particular layer and make changes to their code. It's very transparent."
"I find the CSPM area to be a more valuable and flexible feature."
"Syslog CLIs are the best feature."
"It has a feature for customized security policy. I implement it in banking, health insurance, and other sectors, and every organization has its own customized policies and procedures. In Prisma Cloud, you can customize policies, and based on that, you can do monitoring."
"We were pleased with Prisma's custom and built-in reports. We could go into the dashboard and see all these notifications telling us which subscriptions didn't have TLS 1.2 enabled. The security controls were the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are the alerts and auto-remediation because it allows us a lot of flexibility to customize and do things the Palo Alto team never intended. We faced some challenges with certificates because we also have next-gen firewalls. We would like to equip all the traffic because there have been many cases in which the developers have done things by mistake. Deploying certificates on virtual machines can be complex in a development environment, but we managed to do that with Prisma Cloud."
"The ability to monitor the artifact repository is one of the most valuable features because we have a disparate set of development processes, but everything tends to land in a common set of artifact repositories. The solution gives us a single point where we can apply security control for monitoring. That's really helpful."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"The price could be improved."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"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."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"I would like to see the inclusion of automated counter-attack, although this is probably illegal."
"While the code security feature has undergone recent enhancements, there is room for improvement in terms of its cost module."
"We have discovered that Prisma is not functioning properly with GCP."
"Prisma Cloud lags behind in terms of security automation capabilities."
"I think Prisma Cloud could improve its preventive governance policy and CWP run time modules."
"This solution is more AWS and Azure-centric. It needs to be more specific on the GCP side, which they are working on."
"The area for improvement is less about the product and more about the upsell. If we've already agreed that we'd like your product x, y, or z, don't try to add fries to my burger. I don't need it."
"Support is an area that needs improvement."
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 82 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. 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 Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Akamai App and API Protector, whereas Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, AWS Security Hub and SUSE NeuVector. See our AWS WAF vs. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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.