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)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
R&S Web Application Firewal...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
43rd
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 January 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 5.8%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
AWS WAF5.8%
R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll)0.3%
Other93.9%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
SS
General Manager at 3R Technologie
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 most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable."
"The automation of blocking for security attacks is valuable, with AWS applying rate limiting."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The biggest benefit of AWS WAF for us is to filter malicious requests, so we can protect our environment and application from malicious actors."
"Some valuable features of AWS WAF include its seamless integration and ease of orchestration within the AWS platform."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
 

Cons

"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"The price could be improved."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"Compatibility and integration functionalities, especially with services like Kafka for event-driven messaging, could be better."
"The area that should be improved is licensing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"There are different scale options available for WAF."
"AWS WAF has reasonable pricing."
"The price of AWS WAF is expensive if you do not know how to manage your software up or down. I price of the solution is average amongst the other competitors but it would be better if it was less expensive."
"The price of AWS WAF is reasonable, it is not expensive and it is not cheap."
"The pricing is good and manageable."
"The price is average."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise26
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 Fortinet, F5, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.