Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azure Front Door vs Imperva Web Application Firewall comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
Azure Front Door's customer service is praised for knowledgeable support, timely responses, and excellent documentation aiding user understanding.
No sentiment score available
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Azure Front Door needs better compatibility, competitive pricing, enhanced features, improved performance, and more comprehensive updates for wider adoption.
No sentiment score available
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Azure Front Door offers enterprise-level scalability, supporting global operations and seamless maintenance, earning high user ratings for performance.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
Azure Front Door offers cost-effective, scalable solutions with affordable licensing, though premium tiers have higher expenses for added features.
No sentiment score available
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Azure Front Door is reliable and robust with minimal availability issues, though DNS record setup can occasionally be problematic.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Azure Front Door offers traffic inspection, SSL offloading, scalability, easy setup, affordability, WAF, load balancing, and global resource implementation.
No sentiment score available
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Front Door
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
CDN (2nd), Microsoft Security Suite (15th)
Imperva Web Application Fir...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Front Door is 4.3%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Imperva Web Application Firewall is 6.4%, down from 7.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Thomas Zebar - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides great security with a good application firewall
The initial setup is straightforward. If you want to use the portal, CLI, or PowerShare, or you want to use automation data for one month, it's straightforward. Even when it comes to operational maintenance, it's pretty easy and straightforward. Microsoft has done a great job on that front. Maintenance generally requires someone who is a cloud administrator or similar to maintain services in general, with Front Door a small piece of a larger maintenance requirement. There's not a lot to manage, the configuration is simple. I encourage people to document the configuration and infrastructure as well as disaster recovery in case anything happens.
Abdullah Jin - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers bot protection and DDoS Protection and protects public-facing portals
Support is one thing I wish Imperva could improve. They follow the phone model and keep rotating you from one customer service person to another. The layer one support isn't very clear about the workings of the product. My feedback is primarily about Imperva Cloud, not on-premise. On-premise is a whole new story. Support is the issue for Imperva Cloud. It's also a bit pricey. It's a premium service and very expensive. The licensing model is not very straightforward. Every feature is priced separately, and to enjoy maximum protection, you'll have to spend a lot of money. The licensing model is a bit complex, and each feature is very pricey. For example, API security and web application protection are two separate license packages.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What's the difference between Azure Front Door and Application Gateway?
We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Front Door?
It's a matter of value versus price. If we add more features and raise the price, it must remain justifiable. If we maintain the current set of reasonable features and keep the pricing competitive,...
Is Citrix ADC (formerly Netscaler) the best ADC to use and if not why?
For ADC, any ADC can do a good job. But in case if you want to add WAF functionality to the same ADC hardware you have to look for other ADC's like F5, Imperva, Radware, Fortinet, etc.
DDoS solutions: Any other solutions to consider aside from Radware DefensePro and F5 Silverline DDoS Protection?
You can have a look to Imperva Cloud WAF, the anti-DDoS mitigation is under 1s and works very well. I observed a lot of DDoS attacks that were well managed (even not seen by the customer) by Imperv...
 

Also Known As

Azure Front-Door
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
BlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Front Door vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.