WAF comparison
ModSecurity vs Coraza
Compare ModSecurity and Coraza with a same-CRS Docker request matrix, JSON body results, clean-traffic findings, local latency data, integrations, and operational tradeoffs.
Quick answer
ModSecurity vs Coraza: bottom line
Both pinned stacks matched all 20 expected HTTP decisions in WAFWiki's OWASP CRS 4.25.0 matrix. Choose ModSecurity when existing CRS operations and connector experience matter; choose Coraza when Go-native integration and modern gateway ownership are stronger priorities.
- ModSecurity
- Rule-based detection
- Coraza
- Go platforms
- Decision
- Best for teams choosing an open-source WAF engine for CRS-based detection and custom gateway integration.
| Area | ModSecurity | Coraza | WAFWiki note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine lineage | Classic open-source WAF engine ecosystem | Modern Go-based WAF engine | Both are engine-oriented choices rather than managed WAF services. |
| Integration work | Depends on connector and reverse proxy setup | Depends on Go or gateway integration path | Compare the supported integration path, not only the rule language. |
| Best fit | Teams with ModSecurity or CRS operations history | Teams building Go-native or custom proxy paths | Operational ownership is the decisive factor. |
| WAFWiki request matrix | 10 of 10 expected statuses matched | 10 of 10 expected statuses matched | The same OWASP CRS 4.25.0 and ten-case request set were used; the limited matrix is not a universal accuracy benchmark. |
| JSON body subset | Clean JSON 200; controlled SQLi/XSS JSON 403 | Clean JSON 200; controlled SQLi/XSS JSON 403 | Both stacks exposed parsed JSON field evidence for these three small bodies. |
| Local response-time snapshot | Median 3.956 ms; p95 5.518 ms | Median 3.571 ms; p95 4.904 ms | Forty sequential localhost requests per path with a 0.983 ms direct-upstream median; not a capacity benchmark. |
| Pricing model | Free | Free | Validate feature packaging, traffic volume, support, and required managed rules before comparing cost. |
| License and support | Open source | Open source | Support expectations can change the practical cost and rollout risk. |
| Integration surface | OWASP CRS / Nginx / Apache | Caddy / Traefik / OWASP CRS | Integration fit determines how quickly the WAF can be tested in the real traffic path. |
| Key controls | Transaction inspection / Rule engine / CRS ecosystem | Rule engine / OWASP CRS support / Embeddable architecture | Treat feature claims as test cases for the proof of concept. |
| Operations ownership | Engine integration | Engine integration | This determines who owns monitoring, upgrades, tuning, incident response, and rollback. |
| Best-fit workload | Rule-based detection / Existing CRS users / Legacy WAF stacks | Go platforms / Custom gateways / CRS-based detection | Shortlist the option that matches the team and architecture before deep tuning. |
| Source confidence | 2 source links tracked | 3 source links tracked | Prefer pages with current official documentation, repository, or product references. |
Workflow model
Read the comparison through a traffic-flow diagram.
The diagram shows the actual local topology: one request set and go-httpbin upstream, with OWASP CRS 4.25.0 running through ModSecurity plus NGINX and Coraza plus Caddy. Connector maturity, body parsing, logs, and ownership still remain part of the decision.
How to validate this choice
- Test ModSecurity and Coraza behind the same staging hostname or protected route when the architecture allows it.
- Compare ModSecurity's Nginx / Apache path with Coraza's Library / Reverse Proxy integrations path before comparing feature lists.
- Replay clean login, upload, API, and admin workflows before using blocking actions.
- Record rule matches, false positives, latency, logging detail, ownership, and rollback steps for both options.
Scientific comparison rule
WAFWiki ran the same CRS 4.25.0 request matrix through both stacks and published the results. Readers should extend it with real workflows, exclusions, repeated latency trials, logs, upgrades, and rollback.
ModSecurity
ModSecurity is a widely known open-source WAF engine and a common baseline for rule-based web application firewall deployments.
Read ModSecurity profileCoraza
Coraza is a Go-based WAF engine commonly considered when teams want ModSecurity-compatible rule support in modern Go-native environments.
Read Coraza profile