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)."It has fewer false positives"
"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."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"The user interface could be better."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"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 33rd 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.
