We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Imperva DDoS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is stable."
"The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"Integration with IBM AS/400 and Db2 is okay."
"The solution has a very good interface."
"The complete solution is valuable for everything it delivers and the protection it offers."
"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
"It is a stable solution."
"Simplifies putting everything in code."
"This product is a reliable defense from malicious attacks on a network environment."
"On the real time, you can see live traffic, which is flowing into our website."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"It would be better if we were able to manage and apply changes to multiple websites/web applications, and search WAF logs for multiple websites, via the Incapsula dashboard."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"It's quite expensive."
"The solution should integrate with something that looks at continuous security management."
"The log analytics interface within Incapsula isn't really good. For example, if you have to get all logs from there, it's a very cumbersome process."
"I am not sure if this application has a policy where you can create your custom policy and run it as our firewall. We should have some ability to also create some custom policy, then run it as a firewall."
"Its price could be improved. It is quite expensive. It will be good if we could export the configuration. Currently, to control the configuration, we need to go to each website, which is not very convenient."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 18th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 74 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and F5 Silverline Managed Services, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and Fastly. See our AWS WAF vs. Imperva DDoS report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.