We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: According to the parameters we compared, Imperva Web Application Firewall is the more popular solution. It is easier to deploy than Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and has solid features and excellent technical support. However, users are happier with Azure’s pricing.
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"There is a quick switch between any of the the nodes if something goes wrong, where there's a there's an attack against a specific area. The security setup is reasonably easy. It's not a problem to do setups and rules and integrations. And, yeah, just the the back end team is also very willing to insist if there's questions that that we cannot answer or with these questions that we do have"
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"It has fewer false positives"
"Imperva monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"Imperva has a complete picture of how the applications are utilizing it. It is handy. DDoS is good. It has an internally managed database. It is very easy to integrate. We have integrated it with SIEM services."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
"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."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"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 could be easier to change servicing."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.
