We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall 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 integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"The solution is scalable."
"Imperva is a Gartner leader, so its scalability, performance, and features are excellent."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The management can be improved."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"The signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"The initial setup could be simplified. Every time you have to install the solution you have to get in touch with support or somebody that can to do that for you."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Radware Alteon. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.