Framework Comparison
An objective comparison of key characteristics of different cloud frameworks. The goal is not competition, but context: WAF++ complements existing approaches with governance, transparency, and a sovereign multi-cloud perspective.
| Criterion | WAF++ | AWS WA | Azure CAF | GCP Framework | CNCF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor-neutral | ✔ | ✖ | ✖ | ✖ | ✔ |
| Governance model (TSC/Maintainers/WGs) | ✔ | ✖ | ✖ | ✖ | ✔ |
| Assessment framework | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✖ |
| Multi-cloud focus | ✔ | ● Partial | ● Partial | ● Partial | ✔ |
| Sovereignty / Exit capability as a pillar | ✔ | ✖ | ✖ | ✖ | ● Partial |
| Auditability & traceability (evidence, RFCs) | ✔ | ● Partial | ● Partial | ● Partial | ● Partial |
| Provider tooling as part of the framework | ✖ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✖ |
If you are looking for provider-specific implementation
AWS WA / Azure CAF / GCP Framework provide strong provider-aligned guidance, including concrete services and implementation details.
If you need to decide vendor-neutral
WAF++ focuses on principles, evidence, and traceable decision-making – independent of provider, tooling, or marketing narratives.
If you value community & standardization
CNCF provides the ecosystem – WAF++ builds on that proximity and complements it with a structured assessment and governance model.
Why not X?
A short contextualization of the most relevant alternatives – without competitive bashing.
Go to Why-not page →The 7 Pillars
The perspectives covered by WAF++ (including Sovereign) and how we are building them iteratively.
Go to the pillars →