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)."The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"Imperva monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"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."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."
"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."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"The user interface could be better."
"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 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 34th 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.
