We performed a comparison between Imperva DDoS and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."Technical support was very helpful."
"There is no need to have an appliance in house for the services because it is on the cloud."
"Gives us the ability to trace each connection, and to have logs to be able to differentiate between a positive and a false-positive intruder action."
"On the activity log, I can see the exact details, the visit, and the threat."
"There are quite a few useful Imperva Incapsula features. For example, one of them is the reports. The graphics are very good and it's easy to configure. The whole process is very fast and reliable too. They have good tech support as well."
"Incapsula takes care of the CDN infrastructure and bandwidth volume, providing several enterprise "load balancing" features."
"An improvement has been to our website: It increases the speed of our response, the capacity of the site, and optimizes the bandwidth."
"The complete solution is valuable for everything it delivers and the protection it offers."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"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 production is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"The pricing is quite good."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The rules surrounding the making of web applications could be improved."
"The solution should integrate with something that looks at continuous security management."
"Imperva now offers add-ons to add functionality, but I would like to see these included in the product, even if it would cost more."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"I would like to see automated reporting to improve visibility."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
"The cost could be lower; our end clients need to have a high budget to purchase this solution."
"A limited tool if you're looking to customize."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"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."
"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."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva DDoS is ranked 19th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 74 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Imperva DDoS 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.
