AWS · 2 categories · RankedAWS WAF
Standing by category
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web application firewalls | Network and edge | 5% | 3 of 87 | 13% | 38 | accepted challenger |
| DDoS protection | Network and edge | 0% | 15 of 51 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare at 93% |
Movement
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
By framing
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Cloudflare WAF and AWS WAF are recommended for most clients because they have low false‑positive rates” GLM 4.7 FlashX · WAF · negative prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest evaluating Cloudflare WAF or AWS WAF (if using AWS) as starting points” Claude Haiku 4.5 · WAF · direct prompt · first choice
“Fastest time-to-value | Cloudflare or AWS WAF” Kimi K2 · WAF · scale prompt · first choice
“If you're already heavily invested in AWS or need on‑premises hardware, AWS WAF or F5 BIG‑IP become compelling alternatives” GLM 4.7 FlashX · WAF · direct prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Out of the box, AWS WAF is essentially a blank canvas... It requires deep cloud-engineering expertise to manage, meaning high operational overhead” Gemini 3.5 Flash · WAF · direct prompt · soft negative
“Be cautious of cloud WAFs unless you configure specific rules to block or inspect oversize/padded request bodies.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · WAF · negative prompt · soft negative
“Complicated rules hard to maintain; support delays; frequent evasions (e.g., parsing bugs).” Grok 4.1 Fast · WAF · negative prompt · soft negative
“AWS WAF is very granular, which leads to high operational overhead.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · WAF · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
What carried it into the answer
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 94 of the 129 answers that named AWS WAF and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
392 of the 392 domain citations in answers naming AWS WAF came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Names read as AWS WAF
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AWS WAF's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AWS WAF, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at aws.amazon.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.
Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.