We compared AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
AWS WAF is praised for its effective protection, comprehensive logging capabilities, and customizable rule sets. The customer service is highly responsive and contributes to a positive experience. The return on investment has been positive, but there are areas for improvement in documentation and user-friendliness. On the other hand, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is commended for enhancing website security, user-friendly interface, and integration with other services. The customer service is efficient, and the pricing is competitive. However, users have noted a need for more customization options and improvements in response times and ease of use.
Features: AWS WAF stands out for its effective protection against web attacks, integration with other AWS services, and efficient management of multiple websites. In contrast, Cloudflare WAF is praised for its website security enhancement, user-friendly interface, and comprehensive reporting capabilities.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for AWS WAF was minimal and the process was smooth and straightforward. Users found the pricing affordable and the licensing flexible. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also had competitive pricing with straightforward setup costs and flexible licensing options., AWS WAF users have reported increased security, reduced risks, and improved protection against web threats, with cost savings and enhanced firewall management. Cloudflare's Web Application Firewall has resulted in significant financial gains.
Room for Improvement: The AWS WAF product could improve its documentation and instructions for users with limited technical expertise. Users also find difficulties in setting up and managing rules and desire a more user-friendly interface. In contrast, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall would benefit from enhancements in customization options, response times, and ease of use. Users want more flexibility in tailoring firewall settings and quicker notifications and responses. The interface is also seen as complex and needing simplification for a better user experience.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for AWS WAF emphasize the importance of considering the duration for different phases of implementing a new tech solution. This includes both deployment and setup, which may vary in timeframes. On the other hand, the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall reviews highlight that the duration can vary among users, with some spending three months on deployment and a week on setup, while others only require a week for both. It is necessary to evaluate the context in which these terms are used and consider them collectively., AWS WAF's customer service and support have consistently been praised for their excellence and responsiveness. Users receive prompt assistance and solutions to queries, while the knowledgeable support team ensures overall customer satisfaction. In comparison, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall also has excellent customer service, with responsive and efficient assistance, addressing issues promptly and providing clear instructions. Users feel supported and confident with Cloudflare's customer service.
The summary above is based on 41 interviews we conducted recently with AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"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."
"As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system."
"The interface is good."
"The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats."
"The solution protects our application, which runs on the HTTP protocol, from DDoS attacks."
"I'm highly satisfied. It's remarkably user-friendly, enabling me to quickly identify issues, and deploy solutions, and it offers the necessary features."
"It protects web applications efficiently."
"We like that there's load balancing, firewall capabilities, DDoS protection, et cetera, all covered by Cloudflare."
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"It is a SaaS solution unlike much of the competition."
"Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful."
"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"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 reporting could be more granular."
"A key challenge arises when dealing with numerous integrations with HVAC systems. Depending on the specifics, there might be some configuration mismatches, which necessitate specific support."
"The ModSecurity core rules need to be updated."
"I have experienced some difficulties with Cloudflare's support as a customer based in India."
"Its stability could be better."
"The accuracy of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could be improved by reducing the number of false-negative alerts."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."
"The platform's control features related to real-time authentication and response time need improvement."
More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 16 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2. 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 Cloudflare Web Application Firewall writes "A cloud solution for web application firewall protection with rate-limiting, managed, and custom firewall rules". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai App and API Protector, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and NGINX App Protect. See our AWS WAF vs. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall 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.