We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector 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 product has a good user interface."
"All the solution's features are very good."
"It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure."
"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"The product is user-friendly."
"Everything will be handled by Akamai's system before it reaches our infrastructure."
"We are getting security for each and every API."
"They have a fantastic tool for analyzing and viewing your traffic."
"The solution is stable."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"Very scalable and very stable firewall for web applications, with a good interface in its cloud version. Mitigation is its most valuable feature. The technical support for this product is also good."
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"We are experimenting with EdgeWorkers to write our own code at the Edge level. It could grow to be much better."
"It would be nice if Akamai Web Application Protector's price is lowered and made cheaper."
"Could integrate more features for each security."
"It's fine for a simple tool, but as I recall, if you encounter a lot of bots, scrapers, and other things, you'll need this tool bot and this other thing they offer called Bot Manager."
"In terms of precedence of Akamai rules, the last one is implemented. That is the one that is operational. If two rules contradict, the last one is implemented. We had a clash, but it was really tough to find that out. I would like to have a rulebook because, in their architecture documentation, it is not mentioned anywhere that if two rules clash, the last one works, and if it does not work, then what to do. This is something we were debating today with their tech support. With AWS, we get documents for the issues so that they do not occur in the future. Akamai's support and knowledge base needs to be improved."
"I do not see any area for improvement. Akamai is already maintaining its own databases for the security concerns, vulnerabilities, and attacks that are there. If anything, they should have a solution in the infrastructure security area as well. They should not be only in cloud cybersecurity; they should also be in infrastructure security."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"A lot of piracy happens in India and other countries. If there is a product for protection from piracy, it would be great. For example, there are multiple hackers that hack your event, and there are some channels that pirate and publish the event on some other website. We protect our streaming through DRM and different technologies. We are also protecting the website, but hacking is still happening. If they can work on protecting from piracy, it would be great."
"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."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"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."
"The user interface could be better."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Akamai App and API Protector writes "Easy to learn and gives us a report of traffic". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Prolexic and Google Cloud Armor, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Imperva DDoS. See our Akamai App and API Protector 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.
