Azure Web Application Firewall vs Imperva Web Application Firewall comparison

Microsoft and Imperva are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. Microsoft is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.4, while Imperva is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.8. Microsoft holds a 5.4% mindshare in WAF, compared to Imperva’s 6.4% mindshare. Additionally, 91% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Imperva users who would recommend it.

Azure Web Application Firewall

Read 11 Azure Web Application Firewall reviews

4,581 Views
3,822 Comparison Views

91% willing to recommend

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Read 51 Imperva Web Application Firewall reviews

6,352 Views
5,077 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Azure Web Application Firewall

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

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.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall Report (Updated: October 2024).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

October 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 815,854 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

Azure Web Application Firewall

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

13th

Average Rating

8.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Microsoft Security Suite (20th)

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

6th

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

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 Web Application Firewall is 5.4%, up from 5.2% 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

Azure Principal Architect at Cloud Computech Consultancy

May 4, 2023

Is priced well, is stable, and the initial setup is straightforward

I previously used Barracuda Web Application Firewall. I hope that Azure Web Application Firewall will look at other products and replicate some of their functionality. Azure WAF is doing great because it is designed to host web applications in Azure. However, it can be improved with other services. Barracuda is the most advanced firewall in the industry, so Azure WAF could pick some of its features and replicate them into its own application firewall. Barracuda WAF was deployed in parallel to the traffic. Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic. It should support both public and private points of presence. Additionally, like Barracuda, Azure WAF should have an inspection engine that covers not just Microsoft products, but also products from other manufacturers. This would be a great addition to the product and would increase its security functionality.

Read full review

Abdullah Jin

Principal Cyber Prevent and Defense Engineer at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees

Sep 9, 2024

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Azure Web Application Firewall is its ability to filter requests and block false positives by using custom rules and the OWASP rule set."

"The integration it has with GitHub is great."

"It has been a stable product in my experience."

"The solution has good dashboards."

"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."

"Azure WAF is extremely stable."

"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."

"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."

More Azure Web Application Firewall pros

"The WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network."

"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."

"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."

"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."

"The most valuable features of Imperva Web Application Firewall are the monitoring of databases and the dashboards are easy to understand."

"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."

"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall pros

Cons

"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."

"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."

"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."

"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."

"The documentation needs to be improved."

"The management can be improved."

"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."

More Azure Web Application Firewall cons

"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."

"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."

"It would be helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default."

"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."

"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."

"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."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."

"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."

"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."

"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."

"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."

"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."

"There are a couple of different licensing models."

"The price is high compared to other solutions like FortiWeb."

"There are some licenses that you have to buy to use some features. Its price could be better. Price is always important because, at the end of the day, customers have a budget. If you can meet the budget, you can sell, and if you don't, you cannot sell."

"It's an excellent product, but it can be very costly."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall's pricing is expensive."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall is expensive."

"The cost of this solution depends on the platform."

"There is a license for this solution and we purchase the license annually with no additional fees."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Azure Web Application Firewall?

The integration it has with GitHub is great.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?

The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month. This cost is one of the main reasons why we selected Azure Web Application Firewall. It provides enough functionality for our needs.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?

Microsoft is constantly working on improvements. We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls. Th...

See all answers

Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?

My recommendation is Imperva.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

AWS WAF vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 44% of the time

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 12% of the time

Azure Front Door vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 6% of the time

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 4% of the time

Akamai App and API Protector vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 3% of the time

More Azure Web Application Firewall Competitors

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 17% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 17% of the time

AWS WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 15% of the time

Azure Front Door vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 11% of the time

Radware Alteon vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 3% of the time

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

November 2024

Download Azure Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

Imperva Web Application Firewall

November 2024

Download Imperva Web Application Firewall product report

Learn More

Microsoft

Imperva

Overview

Azure Web Application Firewall (WAF) provides centralized protection of your web applications from common exploits and vulnerabilities. Web applications are increasingly targeted by malicious attacks that exploit commonly known vulnerabilities. SQL injection and cross-site scripting are among the most common attacks.

To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.

Imperva Web Application Firewall is a versatile solution that protects web applications and databases from various attacks, including DDoS, cross-site scripting, and SQL injection attacks. It offers data security, availability, and access control and can be deployed on-premises or on the cloud.

The solution has good security against web attacks and offers advanced bot protection, API security, and mitigation features. Imperva WAF is easy to configure and deploy; it has good customer service and an excellent user interface.

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

BlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens

Buyer's Guide

Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

October 2024

Free Report: Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.