We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Wallarm NG WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"There are many features. There is ease of deployment. You can deploy the Imperva Web Application Firewall in two to three minutes. After that, you have to set the policies. For setting policies, you have toggle buttons. You can turn something on or off."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"There is a quick switch between any of the the nodes if something goes wrong, where there's a there's an attack against a specific area. The security setup is reasonably easy. It's not a problem to do setups and rules and integrations. And, yeah, just the the back end team is also very willing to insist if there's questions that that we cannot answer or with these questions that we do have"
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"The solution is stable."
"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"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."
"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."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"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."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Wallarm NG WAF is ranked 33rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Wallarm NG WAF is rated 8.6. 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 Wallarm NG WAF writes "Active threat detection and adaptive rules are the most valuable for us". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas Wallarm NG WAF is most compared with Salt Security, Noname Security, AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare.
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.