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

Upwind vs Wallarm NG WAF comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Upwind
Ranking in API Security
12th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (38th), Container Security (28th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (19th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (24th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (15th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (7th), AI Security (11th)
Wallarm NG WAF
Ranking in API Security
14th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (39th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Upwind is 3.9%, up from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Wallarm NG WAF is 3.2%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Upwind3.9%
Wallarm NG WAF3.2%
Other92.9%
API Security
 

Featured Reviews

Mohammed Mudasser - PeerSpot reviewer
AI/ML Engineer at a educational organization with 501-1,000 employees
Runtime context has transformed how we prioritize exploitable cloud risks and protect workloads
I appreciate runtime context, which helps connect vulnerabilities and misconfigurations with actual workload behavior and network relationships, making it easier to prioritize remediation based on real exposure rather than simply working through a long list of security findings. The best features that stand out to me are contextual vulnerability prioritization, cloud workload visibility, and runtime security. I especially value how Upwind connects vulnerabilities with actual runtime behavior, which helps focus on exploitable risk rather than working through a long list of findings. It has helped us focus on actual exploitable risk instead of treating every vulnerability equally. By considering runtime activity, exposure, reachability, and sensitive data context, the team can prioritize remediation much faster and reduce unnecessary alert noise. I also value the runtime visibility and attack path context because it connects security findings with network behavior and actual workload. This makes investigations more actionable and helps the team move from simply detecting issues to understanding their real impact. The biggest positive impact has been the prioritization of cloud security risk and improved visibility. Instead of chasing every vulnerability, we can focus on issues that are actually exposed or active at runtime, which makes the security team more efficient and remediation more targeted.
it_user796242 - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Helps us to monitor attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them
Set up Wallarm as a reverse proxy. Do not replace your web server. Use Wallarm first in monitoring mode, then learn from Wallarm which type of request is false positive and which type of request is not. This process takes a couple of weeks for very highly-loaded web applications (few millions of unique visitors in one month). Then you can turn Wallarm into blocking mode and everything will be fine. Do not forget to build a monitoring system, the wave, and API for it. Before we started using Wallarm, I already knew Ivan (CEO) and Stepan (COO) from a couple of years before. Ivan had his own security company and Stepan was working on a Russian security magazine called Xakep. They told us that they wanted to create a new WAF and already had a working version of it. They asked me to test it. We did tests, and it was really good. After few month after testing, we signed an agreement. Our choice was made not because we knew these guys for a long time, but because the product was really cool and we were glad to start using it as one of the first on the market!

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The combination of runtime visibility, security insights, and contextual risk prioritization makes it much easier to focus on the risks that actually matter."
"Upwind has positively impacted my organization by reducing time to action and time to response by half."
"They are a great overall cloud security platform and they continue innovating and adding new features."
"My advice for others looking into using Upwind is that if you are seeking a strong CNAPP with an advanced runtime and strong CDR capabilities, this is the product."
"The most powerful feature is the ability to first learn what type of query to make to your web application when it is attacked and what type of query creates a false positive to your app."
"Perimeter control and active vulnerability scanner are the most valuable features."
"With active threat detection, we are no longer over-swamped with tons of useless events."
"Vulnerability scanner and WAF are valuable features."
"They are the only solution that fits our success criteria and business objectives: WAF must have a low (<5%) false negative rate and be ready to protect from all well-known web attacks."
"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."
 

Cons

"Upwind can be improved because its UI is a bit difficult to navigate."
"Wallarm uses a learning mechanism to detect attacks and to avoid false positives. If Wallarm blocks some illegitimate request, then you can go to the management console and mark this request as false positive, but sometimes this does not work properly."
"It needs more customization in PDF reports."
"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."
"There were several stability issues during the first pilot."
"Technical support is 6 or 7 out of 10. Sometimes we have had trouble with communication and understanding."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"​Pricing must be cheaper than the competition and the licensing must be good.​"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Upwind?
The pricing, setup cost, and licensing process were pretty reasonable.
What needs improvement with Upwind?
I would appreciate more customizable dashboards and reporting for different teams, such as security operations, engineering, and leadership. The runtime context is excellent, but tailoring those vi...
What is your primary use case for Upwind?
My main use case for Upwind is cloud security and workload protection. I primarily use it to gain visibility into cloud assets, vulnerabilities, and runtime risks, and I mainly use it to prioritize...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Upwind Security Upwind Platform for AWS Security Hub, Upwind Security Upwind for AWS Security Hub Extended
Wallarm NG-WAF
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

StockX, Yotpo, bill, Digital Turbine, nanit, CallRail, boomi
Panasonic. Miro. Rappi. Wargaming. Gannett. Omio. Acronis. Workforce Software. Tipalti. SEMRush.
Find out what your peers are saying about Upwind vs. Wallarm NG WAF and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.