We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiWeb 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 most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiWeb is the ease of integration and configuration."
"The most valuable feature is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"It helps us prevent attacks on servers."
"SSL Offloading simplifies the public certificate handling and brings additional protection features."
"Auto Learn feature: Makes policy additions or deletions for my customers very simple"
"High-performance and detection engines, provide a high rate of exposure of web attacks."
"The customers are very happy with this solution because of two things. First, the IPS integration with a web application is very tightly done on Fortinet. Second, the ease of use is there. The management interface or the GUI interface is very easy to use, configure, and manage. These are the two main valuable features. It supports integration with other Fortinet products. It also integrates very well with the firewall and sandboxing technology. They already have enough integration with different technologies. They have got a complete tech intelligence view of the whole product."
"If I need something from tech support, I can get it answered within the hour."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"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 monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"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."
"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."
"The support side of things can be improved."
"The reporting could be optimized."
"A user interface or dashboard for troubleshooting is needed."
"It can be better with web application firewalls."
"It may be better if it were easier to create roles."
"Centralized management of multiple devices, and GUI improvement, could reduce the learning curve."
"They can introduce a scaled-down version for the SMB market. It would be very competitive in the environment."
"The initial setup is complex."
"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."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our Fortinet FortiWeb 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.
