Sucuri WAF vs AWS WAF
Zero of fourteen models named Sucuri WAF first on the direct prompt; zero named AWS WAF. Sucuri WAF was named by eleven of the fourteen models and AWS WAF by fourteen and Sucuri WAF carries 17 labels and AWS WAF 56, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in four categories this edition.
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
Sucuri WAFFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAWS WAF
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Sucuri WAF and AWS WAF were named in the same answer fifty-four times, of the 72 answers naming Sucuri WAF and the 198 naming AWS WAF. In those answers AWS WAF took the first choice zero times and Sucuri WAF two.
Every model, every framing
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | | |
Sucuri WAF AWS WAF first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Sucuri WAF on the left and AWS WAF on the right.The direct prompt
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.Neither was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
Sucuri WAF2%#2 of 9AWS WAF0%#3 of 9Sucuri WAF0%#– of 9AWS WAF0%#8 of 9What the models said about Sucuri 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.
“ModSecurity (open-source, used in many like OWASP CRS, AWS WAF, Sucuri, Azure): Very common but outdated signatures make it easy to bypass” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Small B2B sites with mainly CMS‑based content (less relevant for custom APIs)” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · soft negative
“For most small businesses, Sucuri provides the best balance of protection, features, and price.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“1. Sucuri (Best Overall for Budget)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Sucuri is highly recommended specifically for WordPress websites and small business sites” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
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
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.