We performed a comparison between Azure Front Door 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."It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"The solution is good."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"Imperva has a complete picture of how the applications are utilizing it. It is handy. DDoS is good. It has an internally managed database. It is very easy to integrate. We have integrated it with SIEM services."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"It has fewer false positives"
"The solution can scale."
"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."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our Azure Front Door 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.
