We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"Although FortiADC has multiple features that I like, the global DNS is the most helpful. It is primarily useful for customers with huge environments and at least two data centers. FortiADC can act as your DNS server. It can check which data center has the lowest latency, and route traffic to that one. It's an intelligent DNS."
"The solution provides high-level services such as availability, redundancy, and load balancing between servers."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"It's a good product because it supports all the features that ADC solutions in the market can support, like F5 solutions, for example, such as the LTM of F5."
"Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it."
"The solution is scalable."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"Setup could be easier. The company's homework is to redesign those menus to configure with the smallest number of steps."
"The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"Technical support and documentation could both be improved."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"FortiADC is complex to configure so the interface should be improved."
"Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"It would be helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"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."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
