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."The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"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."
"The solution is good."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"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."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"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 WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"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."
"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."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"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."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"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."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"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."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved."
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.