Imperva Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway comparison

Imperva and Microsoft are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. Imperva is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.8, while Microsoft is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.3. Imperva holds a 6.4% mindshare in WAF, compared to Microsoft’s 10.5% mindshare. Additionally, 97% of Imperva users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of Microsoft users who would recommend it.

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Read 51 Imperva Web Application Firewall reviews

6,352 Views
5,077 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Microsoft Azure Application...

Read 46 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway reviews

11,809 Views
10,138 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Microsoft Azure Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Imperva Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway compete in the application security market. Azure Application Gateway often has the upper hand due to its advanced features and seamless integration with the Azure ecosystem.

Features: Imperva Web Application Firewall offers robust security capabilities, ease of scalability, and competitive pricing. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway provides seamless integration with Azure services, flexible configurations, and a diverse feature set offering comprehensive solutions.

Room for Improvement: Users of Imperva suggest enhancements in analytics, reporting functionalities, and more customizable security policies. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway users request more intuitive configuration options, improved documentation, and streamlined deployment processes, which impact overall user experience differently.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Deployment for Imperva is straightforward with commendable customer service. Azure Application Gateway requires more technical expertise, leveraging Microsoft's extensive support materials and community resources, indicating a trade-off between ease of deployment and long-term management.

Pricing and ROI: Imperva's competitive pricing model and quick ROI make it efficient. Microsoft Azure involves a higher upfront investment, justified by comprehensive features and integration within Azure, offering value over time. Users assess initial costs against the benefits of feature richness and integration.

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

Buyer's Guide

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

October 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 816,406 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

6th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Microsoft Azure Application...

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

2nd

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

8.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Imperva Web Application Firewall is 6.4%, down from 7.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is 10.5%, down from 13.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

Featured Reviews

Abdullah Jin

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

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

Sami

Cyber Security Consultant at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure

The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly. There isn't a standardized process for blocking IPs. IPs need to be blocked individually, whether one or one hundred. A normal scenario would be to copy and paste multiple IPs at the same time but the solution does not offer this option. Updating takes a long time and is up to the WAF. In most cases, we prepare scripts to handle these updates.

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 solution is stable."

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

"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."

"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."

"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."

"It has fewer false positives"

"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."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall pros

"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."

"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."

"The production is a valuable feature."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an easy-to-use solution."

"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."

"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."

"The most valuable feature is WAF."

"The load balancing features are valuable."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway pros

Cons

"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."

"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."

"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."

"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."

"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."

"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."

"Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall cons

"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."

"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."

"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."

"We faced some downtime while validating CNAME."

"It could be easier to change servicing."

"The security of the product could be adjusted."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."

"The product's performance should be better."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are a couple of different licensing models."

"Make sure you understand the way that Imperva charges. It's very affordable. However, I would like to see a package with the Virtual Patching included. You get to do patching separately."

"It is very costly, but the return on investment is very high. Its cost was around $70,000, and we got it back in just six months."

"The pricing is somewhat expensive. It is actually a huge investment when compared to other countries."

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

"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."

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

"Imperva Web Application Firewall price is higher compared to other solutions. However, everything is included in the price."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

"There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution."

"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive."

"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a pretty affordable product. My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. The additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution vary."

"It is an expensive solution. We have an enterprise agreement, it is monthly."

"The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."

"Regarding pricing for Azure Application Gateway, I would rate it at seven."

"I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this."

"The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

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

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...

See all answers

How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?

Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?

Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it.

See all answers

Comparisons

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

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 9% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Competitors

F5 Advanced WAF vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Compared 13% of the time

AWS WAF vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Compared 11% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Compared 10% of the time

NetScaler vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Compared 10% of the time

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Compared 6% of the time

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Imperva Web Application Firewall

November 2024

Download Imperva Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

November 2024

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report

Download Microsoft Azure Application Gateway product report

Also Known As

No data available

Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway

Learn More

Imperva

Microsoft

Overview

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.

Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.

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

Sample Customers

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

Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell

Buyer's Guide

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

October 2024

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

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.