We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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)."We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"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 scalable."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"The solution's instant reports feature is the most effective for detecting threats."
"It is fully automated."
"The most valuable features of Tenable.io Web Application Scanning are the integration into specific use cases and scanning. All of the features of the solution are useful."
"We can get detailed information about vulnerabilities."
"The solution is stable."
"We use the tool for our websites. We have a vulnerable subdomain. The tool helps to scan it for vulnerabilities."
"The most effective feature of the product is the ability to scan the entire environment."
"Our customers adopt this solution because of the replication testing and the vulnerability assessment it can do. It is a multi-faceted product."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by adding more features to the dashboard. increasing the visibility of the real-time events, besides configuring the administration itself."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"There could be some limitations that from the converged infrastructure perspective: when you want to converge with everything and you want Imperva to get there easily because it's not a cloud component. For example, when you want to build servers and you're using OneView to manage your software-defined networks, implementing Imperva right away is not that simple. But if you're doing just a simple cloud infrastructure with servers in there, you're good to go. Also, we are not able, with Imperva, to block by signatures. Imperva by itself needs to be complemented with another service to do URL filtering."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"The user interface could be better."
"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 platform's technical support services could be better."
"It would be great if there were a dashboard that is more user-friendly."
"The report customization needs to be better."
"The reporting has a very limited customization capability."
"The technical support should be improved. Currently, some attacks are detected while others are not."
"I would like for them to add proxy filtering, where you can transfer and alter the package. It is fully automated. Other web application testers programs are actually proxy software, and the proxy software gives you the flexibility of modifying the outgoing package, which will actually help you in exploiting any vulnerability in detail."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning could improve by offering faster fuzzing."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable.io Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is ranked 24th in Application Security Tools with 14 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is rated 7.6. 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 Tenable.io Web Application Scanning writes "Highly Recommended Solution with Latest Scanning Methods". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is most compared with Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify on Demand, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).
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.