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

F5 Advanced WAF vs Sucuri comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

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)
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
37th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (26th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 7.8%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 1.1%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
F5 Advanced WAF7.8%
Sucuri1.1%
Other91.1%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Kallamuddin Ansari - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Consultant at ProTechmanize
Application security has protected critical banking services while policy learning minimizes false blocks
F5 Advanced WAF performs well overall, but I have noticed some points that could enhance the solution. Initially, policy tuning could be simpler, as while the learning engine is powerful, initial tuning still requires experienced engineers, which can be challenging for new teams due to the complexity of options and parameters. A more guided and simple tuning workflow would help reduce the learning curve. Additionally, tighter native integration with SIEM or SOAR tools would simplify correlation and investigations for security teams, although log exports are available. Overall, these are not blockers, merely enhancement opportunities, and once tuned, F5 Advanced WAF is very stable and reliable; improving usability, reporting, and onboarding would make it even more effective for larger environments.
JS
Hardware Engineer at Ministry of Defense
A cost-effective choice for website security and informative support with issues related to CDN quality
One area where they could improve is in providing real-time support options because now you need to open a support ticket and wait for their response. It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance. I have found their Content Delivery Network service to be lacking in quality, and it could certainly be enhanced to provide better performance. I would also like to see improvements in the deployment process, as it currently takes more time than desirable. Another significant concern is that their service when your website is down, turns it into a static site. This means that if customers try to visit your site during downtime, they will see old content from the static site, which is not ideal. The CDN and tracking services are areas that need improvement, as well as addressing their bandwidth limitations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like them because I like the security solution. They get extra marks compared to other solutions or competitors. There are more features than any other product I can think of. They're always monitoring, and the security features offer more than other, lesser products."
"The best solution for WAF."
"The solution uses AI to protect against botnet attacks."
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"The product is used to secure web applications and has the ability to use API templates and bot protection features, such as blocking requests or presenting CAPTCHA pages to end users."
"The AOF solution provides numerous security features."
"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."
"F5 helped to meet compliance and regulatory requirements."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
 

Cons

"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"F5 Advanced WAF needs better integration within the application, like remote dashboards."
"Initially, policy tuning could be simpler, as while the learning engine is powerful, initial tuning still requires experienced engineers, which can be challenging for new teams due to the complexity of options and parameters."
"The overall price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve."
"It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
"One improvement for AOF could be focusing on enhancing its AI engine to make it more mature."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing for this solution is higher than average."
"Licensing fees for this solution are paid on a yearly basis."
"F5 Advanced WAF is not a cost-effective solution. Although they are attempting to reduce prices with their VE and cloud options, they are more expensive than other solutions. The solution is more expensive on average."
"F5 bundles up services and the bundle is what you pay for rather than individual components."
"The price of the solution is reasonable when compared with other products, such as FortiWeb. I am very satisfied with the price."
"F5 Advanced WAF's pricing is high."
"A yearly license for F5 Advanced WAF is expensive."
"There is an annual subscription for this solution."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business25
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise31
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about F5 Advanced WAF?
It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?
Regarding the price, I think the cost is a bit higher compared to others. Earlier we were using Radware, and compared to Radware, it is very high. However, it is providing more features than Radwar...
What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?
In terms of additional features I would like to see from them in the future, I think the GTM is a bit complicated to configure, which I observed. Otherwise, LTM and WAF are straightforward. I faced...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 Advanced WAF vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.