We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, F5 Advanced WAF seems to be the marginally superior solution. Our reviewers find that Imperva Web Application Firewall‘s cost makes it prohibitive for some organizations to afford.
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most."
"F5 Advanced WAF secures our connectivity and combines both the main functions of WAF (balancing and web application security)."
"The initial setup was was easy to install."
"It is easy to obtain dashboard compliance because security policy views are included."
"The most valuable feature is that it is secure."
"I like all of the features, but the main one is the attack signatures."
"We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country. It has a replication feature. Licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license."
"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 is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security."
"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."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"I would say their graphical interface, the GUI. I don't like the GUI as much as before."
"The accuracy of the automatic learning feature needs improvement."
"The solution should include protection against web page attacks like what is available in FortiWeb."
"One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy."
"People who want to work with the device have to be pro in Linux"
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the reporting. It's a bit difficult to populate, them. If you're not so familiar with the functions, such as where to find the logs and other settings."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"We get false positives sometimes."
"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."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"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."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our F5 Advanced WAF 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.
