We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: According to the parameters we compared, Imperva Web Application Firewall is the more popular solution. It is easier to deploy than Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and has solid features and excellent technical support. However, users are happier with Azure’s pricing.
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"Very scalable and very stable firewall for web applications, with a good interface in its cloud version. Mitigation is its most valuable feature. The technical support for this product is also good."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"Its inline transferring mode is the most valuable because it is 100% transparent. When you change the IP, there is no change on the network side. If you can't and want to try to reach an IP, you can reach the server IP. There are many other advanced security features in it. The smallest appliances of Imperva can handle the highest traffic at a customer site. For example, a smaller appliance from Imperva can provide you the same security as an F5 product."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by adding more features to the dashboard. increasing the visibility of the real-time events, besides configuring the administration itself."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.
