Index › IT › Network and edge › WAF › AWS WAF vs ModSecurity
Web application firewalls · November 2026 Edition

AWS WAF vs ModSecurity

Zero of fourteen models named AWS WAF first on the direct prompt; zero named ModSecurity. AWS WAF was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and ModSecurity by ten and AWS WAF carries 56 labels and ModSecurity 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

AWS WAF

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

ModSecurity

criticized challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%50%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels5620A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, AWS WAF reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cloudflare WAF was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cloudflare WAF vs AWS WAF · Cloudflare WAF vs ModSecurity · Sucuri WAF vs AWS WAF

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the web application firewalls page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AWS WAFFirst choices, of fourteen modelsModSecurity
Direct001 against ModSecurity
Paraphrase102 against ModSecurity
Comparative002 against ModSecurity
Budget-constrained012 against AWS WAF
Scale-constrained00
Negative004 against AWS WAF · 5 against ModSecurity
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, AWS WAF and ModSecurity were named in the same answer thirty-eight times, of the 198 answers naming AWS WAF and the 48 naming ModSecurity. In those answers ModSecurity took the first choice one time and AWS WAF zero.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where AWS WAF and ModSecurity stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
AWS WAF ModSecurity first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, AWS WAF on the left and ModSecurity on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where AWS WAF and ModSecurity stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

12 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
GPT-5.4 miniCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, F5 Distributed Cloud WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF, Imperva App Protect
Perplexity SonarCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Grok 4.20Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure WAF, Barracuda WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Mistral SmallCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva SecureSphere
DeepSeek V4 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, Imperva Application Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure Front Door, F5 Distributed Cloud WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
Kimi K2Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
GLM 4.7 FlashXCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
MiniMax M2.5Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Google Cloud Armor, Imperva Cloud WAF, Radware Cloud WAF Service
GPT-6 LunaCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF
Muse Glimmer 30BCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda Web Application Firewall

Neither was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Barracuda WAF alternatives: Cloudflare WAF, Microsoft Azure WAF
Llama 4 MaverickCloudflare WAF

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
AWS WAF0%#3 of 9
ModSecurity0%#6 of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
AWS WAF2%#3 of 12
ModSecurity2%#6 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
AWS WAF0%#8 of 9
ModSecurity0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about AWS WAF

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Out-of-the-box cloud WAF rules (e.g., basic default AWS WAF or Azure WAF rules) without fine-tuning either block legitimate traffic or miss application-specific flaws.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“avoid high licensing costs (often $5K–$50K+/year for commercial tools like Cloudflare Enterprise, AWS WAF, or Imperva)” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“Cloudflare or AWS WAF tend to offer the best value with solid protection” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“If your company's infrastructure is already hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS), using AWS WAF is likely the most cost-effective path.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
“Strong integration with CloudFront and other AWS services; cost-efficient if the application is already deeply invested in AWS.” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · alternative

What the models said about ModSecurity

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Do not install this unless you are prepared to spend weeks maintaining the OWASP Core Rule Set (CRS). An unpatched open-source WAF is often less secure” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Deploying legacy self-hosted open-source WAF engines (like unmaintained ModSecurity v2/v3 builds) without active maintenance or rule updates.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid purely open-source options like ModSecurity unless you have dedicated security staff” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Top Recommendation: ModSecurity (with OWASP Core Rule Set)” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · first choice
“don't reject ModSecurity simply because it's older: its project says it is now under OWASP stewardship and actively maintained” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · alternative
“ModSecurity or Coraza offer powerful, free protection with complete customization” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.