Why not X?
There are already strong frameworks — and that's a good thing. WAF++ does not exist to replace them, but to make governance, traceability, and vendor-neutral multi-cloud decision-making a first-class objective.
When WAF++ is the right choice
Three signals that WAF++ belongs in your stack — regardless of what else you already use.
If architectural decisions don't happen within a single cloud provider — or you take exit capability seriously — you need a neutral lens. WAF++ is built for exactly this: multi-cloud by design, not by accident.
WAF++ relies on evidence, RFCs, and transparent trade-offs. Architecture decisions become traceable artifacts — not tribal knowledge. That makes reviews, audits, and long-term operations significantly easier.
Maintainers, working groups, and a TSC are part of the system — not "maybe later". WAF++ ships with a community governance model out of the box, so your framework evolves with your organization and the wider community.
An overlay, not a replacement
Many teams already use AWS Well-Architected, Azure CAF, or GCP frameworks — and should keep doing so. WAF++ sits on top as a governance and assessment layer.
WAF++ applies a consistent lens across any cloud. Provider-specific guidance feeds into it — not the other way around.
Every change to the framework goes through a documented, reviewable RFC. No silent updates, no opaque vendor decisions.
Data residency, vendor neutrality, and exit strategies are built into the framework — not bolted on as an afterthought.
What the alternatives offer — and where WAF++ complements
No framework-bashing. Each has a role. Here's an honest look at where each excels and where WAF++ fills the gap.
Concrete, product-aligned recommendations within a single ecosystem — rich tooling, many quick wins, deep service guidance.
- Neutral multi-cloud assessment
- Community governance & RFCs
- Sovereignty as a first-class concern
Standards, best practices, and proven project governance across the cloud-native landscape — TAGs, working groups, and a rich reference ecosystem.
- A single, consistent scoring framework
- Auditability as an artifact standard
- Cross-provider assessment criteria
Legally robust, audit-ready standards with broad acceptance — strong foundation for controls, compliance terminology, and risk management.
- Practical, day-to-day architecture guidance
- Cloud-native pattern lens
- Trade-off documentation & evidence structure
How to use WAF++ together with X
These are not competing choices — they're complementary layers. Here's the practical split.
Use provider frameworks for concrete service and implementation guidance — they know their products best. Use WAF++ as the neutral assessment overlay: governance, sovereignty, and multi-cloud consistency sit here.
Use CNCF for ecosystem standards, project maturity, and cloud-native best practices. Use WAF++ for scoring, assessment criteria, and the governance process that turns those practices into auditable architecture decisions.
Use ISO/NIST/BSI as the control and compliance foundation — they provide the legally accepted terminology. Use WAF++ to operationalize those controls for architecture and platform teams in day-to-day engineering.
See where WAF++ clearly differs
The comparison page shows a side-by-side breakdown — or jump straight into the 7 pillars to understand what WAF++ covers in practice.