We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Imperva DDoS 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."This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"Imperva Incapsula has many valuable features. One, it protects the top 10 OWAS vulnerability, the open web application software platform, this is standard. Secondly, it protects against broken authentication. As well, it has remote execution of code."
"We have peace of mind that nobody will use malware on us or try to hack our website."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
"Scalability is pretty easy on the base platform. You just add another, and you're ready to go."
"It fits our requirements, as well as our budget."
"Simplifies putting everything in code."
"The dashboard is good and user-friendly."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"The product must provide more features."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"I would like to see automated reporting to improve visibility."
"Users would benefit from better documentation. There is official documentation, but sometimes we need more detail. We have some use cases that are not so run of the mill. It would be great if there was a knowledge base that we could go to for more answers."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
"It needs to be improved every time there are new attacks."
"Its price could be improved. It is quite expensive. It will be good if we could export the configuration. Currently, to control the configuration, we need to go to each website, which is not very convenient."
"The salespeople tend to exaggerate its capabilities, which can cost you money if you don't verify the information."
"I would like to have support for SSL management and secure DNS."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 18th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 74 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and F5 Silverline Managed Services, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and Fastly. See our AWS WAF vs. Imperva DDoS 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.