We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: According to the parameters we compared, Imperva Web Application Firewall is the more popular solution. It is easier to deploy than Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and has solid features and excellent technical support. However, users are happier with Azure’s pricing.
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"Its inline transferring mode is the most valuable because it is 100% transparent. When you change the IP, there is no change on the network side. If you can't and want to try to reach an IP, you can reach the server IP. There are many other advanced security features in it. The smallest appliances of Imperva can handle the highest traffic at a customer site. For example, a smaller appliance from Imperva can provide you the same security as an F5 product."
"It has fewer false positives"
"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 can scale."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The pricing is quite 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."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"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."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"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."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"Microsoft needs to work on their documentation."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
