We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Fastly 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 most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The solution is stable."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"Support is good; the product works as advertised. We have a Slack connection with them. So we can basically ask for help, live, engage, and ring when they respond. Very quickly."
"The product helps our organization to access sites located in different regions quickly."
"Compute@Edge features are valuable to me."
"Fastly uses configuration versioning, where you can deploy a new version in less than one minute."
"Its initial setup process is straightforward."
"Rate limiting is a good feature that protects from volumetric attacks."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"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."
"AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process."
"We need more support as we go global."
"Support is not that great."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The product should provide improved bot detection and management."
"Stronger analytics would be helpful, like showing configurations that haven't served a certain amount of traffic in a while. With many properties, things can get lost track of - duplicates or unused configurations not properly decommissioned."
"Fastly's customer service area needs improvement."
"It is missing a "staging" platform to deploy a test configuration with all of the real settings, which would allow us to properly test before putting it into production."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Fastly is ranked 17th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Fastly 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 Fastly writes "An easily scalable and stable product that provides exceptional support". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Imperva DDoS, whereas Fastly is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Amazon CloudFront, F5 Advanced WAF and Imperva DDoS. See our AWS WAF vs. Fastly 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.