No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

F5 Advanced WAF vs Radware Kubernetes WAF comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

F5 Advanced WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Radware Kubernetes WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
32nd
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 3.6%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Radware Kubernetes WAF is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 Advanced WAF3.6%
Radware Kubernetes WAF0.6%
Other95.8%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2797602 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Granular security policies have protected critical applications and ensure safe user and admin access
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify which source generated these requests, including the source and port information for initiation. These data are missing from F5 Advanced WAF. Besides that, another improvement could be refining the bot detection to minimize false positives; it should be able to verify more granularly between legitimate and non-legitimate clients. Overall, I find everything else good. A wish list feature I have is for the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) to respond more promptly. Their response time needs improvement; while they do not take excessive time, it can be enhanced, especially given it is a security product.
SR
Network Engineer at Rah Infotech Pvt Ltd
Provides automated protection against web attacks and simplifies deployment with cost-effective pricing
Radware Kubernetes WAF protects our web applications from web-based attacks like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. It provides automation capabilities. For example, if a DDoS attack is happening, it automatically recognizes the attack and prevents it accordingly. Radware Kubernetes WAF provides automation that is effective in dealing with security threats.

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 features of the F5 Advanced WAF are the enhanced ASM and the performance, and additionally, the usability and effectiveness are very good."
"The most valuable feature is that it is secure."
"This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most."
"The support experience is better than average."
"After implementing F5 Advanced WAF, nearly 99.9% of requests are legitimate due to the granularity and response verification by attack patterns and request blocking."
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"F5 Advanced WAF has benefited our company by protecting us against revenue loss, preventing hacks that would have taken us offline or caused us a loss of revenue in different areas."
"The anti-bot protection is the solution's most valuable feature. Safe-guard or credential staffing are also useful features."
"I would give Radware Kubernetes WAF a rating of 10 out of 10."
 

Cons

"The solution is very expensive so should only be used in the right environment."
"The price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve; it is expensive."
"The BNS module needs improvement."
"The solution is pretty difficult to set up. You really have to have a grasp of the product to configure it correctly."
"I think the solution is already being phased out."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive."
"I would say their graphical interface, the GUI. I don't like the GUI as much as before."
"If Radware provides a separate web service like those offered by vendors such as F5 and Imperva, that would be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its price is fair. We have done a couple of deals where they were able to give some kind of discount to the customers. The price was initially high for the customers, but after a couple of negotiations, it came within their budget. They were happy with that."
"The solution is very expensive so should only be used in the right environment."
"The pricing for F5 Advanced WAF is comparable to a Rolls-Royce. Its price is a bit high when you compare it with other vendors. F5 Advanced WAF is a bit expensive. The customer was on a three-year plan and it was around $560,000."
"The way we deployed it, I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"The cost is slightly above average."
"I don't have any issue with the pricing of this solution."
"F5 Advanced WAF technical support comes at a cost, and it's expensive."
"A yearly license for F5 Advanced WAF is expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise16
Large Enterprise31
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?
F5 Advanced WAF is somewhat costly compared to other vendors, but it is worth the investment due to the stability it provides to the environment and infrastructure.
What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify wh...
What is your primary use case for F5 Advanced WAF?
My main use case for F5 Advanced WAF is to protect external and internal applications from cyber attacks and to prevent malicious payloads and malicious data from reaching servers. Even if maliciou...
What needs improvement with Radware Kubernetes WAF?
If Radware provides a separate web service like those offered by vendors such as F5 and Imperva, that would be better.
What is your primary use case for Radware Kubernetes WAF?
We use Radware Kubernetes WAF to protect our web applications from web-based attacks like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. It provides an integrated web with load balancers but does not have...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva, Radware, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.