We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"The solution provides high-level services such as availability, redundancy, and load balancing between servers."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"Simple to use and easy to integrate."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"I am impressed with the product's load-balancing feature."
"From a technical perspective, it is the most scalable device from Fortinet."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"It has fewer false positives"
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"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 user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"Issues with SSL and encrypted traffic."
"The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale."
"Setup could be easier. The company's homework is to redesign those menus to configure with the smallest number of steps."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
"Technical support and documentation could both be improved."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"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."
"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 signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
