We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Radware Alteon 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 compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"The solution is stable."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"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."
"The interface is easy, it's friendly, and has good alerting."
"The features that mitigate attacks are very valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the load-balancing reverse proxy."
"I am finding SSL-TLS acceleration the most valuable function, with certificate management. It is easy to generate certificates and assign them to services"
"The UI is user-friendly."
"The most valuable aspect is that it establishes user security."
"I like the ADC feature and the global certificate feature."
"The most valuable aspect is the ability to customize the types of load-balancing scenarios needed for customized applications. Some of the load balancers on the market today are strictly out-of-hand load balancers for SSL or HTTP. Radware Alteon is most useful for customizing in-house applications based on ports and protocols."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"There could be some limitations that from the converged infrastructure perspective: when you want to converge with everything and you want Imperva to get there easily because it's not a cloud component. For example, when you want to build servers and you're using OneView to manage your software-defined networks, implementing Imperva right away is not that simple. But if you're doing just a simple cloud infrastructure with servers in there, you're good to go. Also, we are not able, with Imperva, to block by signatures. Imperva by itself needs to be complemented with another service to do URL filtering."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by providing better features, such as improved prevention of zero-day attacks. Additionally, it should include a VR meta-analysis."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
"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."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"The service could be improved by better customer support."
"The interface implementation can be improved."
"The solution could be more open to additional third-party add-ons being integrated into it."
"A feature that I would like to see included in the next version might be a better analysis when working with crypt issues. Right now, it is very manual; you load it into Alteon and it runs. It would be interesting to see a more dynamic process."
"I would like to see future enhancements in security, specifically in threat protection."
"The reverse proxy piece is a little bit complicated. If the reverse proxy were easier to implement, that would help."
"It can be improved by combining the web application firewall (WAF) facility."
"Support is an area that needs improvement."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 33 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. 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 Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Fastly, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Fortinet FortiADC. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Radware Alteon 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.