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

AWS WAF vs R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
R&S Web Application Firewal...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
41st
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 9.3%, down from 13.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is 0.2%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Kavin Kalaiarasu - PeerSpot reviewer
AWS's cloud-native security simplifies rule enforcement but needs better DDoS integration
The dashboarding could be improved, and the default metrics provided by AWS WAF could be upgraded. The rate at which AWS updates their managed rule sets could be better. Features like bot protection or DDoS mitigation, available with other WAF vendors, do not come natively with AWS WAF. Instead, they are part of AWS Shield. Providing DDoS protection as part of their WAF solution would be beneficial.
SS
Geo-localization and IP reputation help to keep our clients secure and more available
The area that should be improved is licensing. When using an active/passive cluster, we have to pay 70% of the master appliance and license for the passive server that does not work. Since we know that only one server works at a time, we should pay only one license for the appliances and for the support as well. In my opinion, this has to be improved. If possible, the client software should be a web application instead of downloading software for the management. This can avoid login problems when they update or patch.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"The interface is good."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"We preferred the product based on its cost. AWS WAF is an out-of-the-box solution and integrates with the AWS services that we use. It's natively integrated with AWS."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
 

Cons

"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"We should be able to do proper whitelisting."
"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"The product must provide more features."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"The area that should be improved is licensing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge. It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
"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."
"For Kubernetes microservices, AWS is more expensive compared to OCI. AWS costs approximately 70 cents per hour, while OCI is 50% cheaper."
"It's an annual subscription."
"The pricing is good and manageable."
"The price is average."
"AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
No data available
 

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.
Which Web Application Firewall (WAF) would you recommend? R&S or Imperva?
Imperva is a strong choice, given their security focus and ongoing R&D into the product in areas such as bot management.
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
Rohde & Schwarz Web Application Firewall, R&S WAF, DenyAll Web Application Security
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.