We performed a comparison between A10 Thunder TPS and Imperva DDoS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can keep track of all the customer's requirements. We can forecast our trails and we can forecast our overall financial things."
"The most valuable feature of A10 Thunder TPS is load balancing."
"Thunder TPS has automated mitigation and fully managed support in case the device cannot handle the attack. They have engineers available to respond."
"They give us the ability to configure many features for DDoS. There are many items that we can use."
"We selected the solution because of its programmable automated defense using RESTful API. We didn't want to connect to the box. We wanted to be able to do some automation. We wanted to have our own portal because we wanted to connect our customers to our own UI using the A10 API. It has been good and exactly what we need."
"The response time to an attack is instant. We've used some outsourced solutions in the past, out in the cloud, that weren't so quick. But it's all within our control now. We control how fast it mitigates."
"The solution's support is one of the coolest things about the product. I"
"The solution has reduced the amount of manual intervention required during an attack. We have the inline solution and when it comes to the customers that we have on it, it has saved us some troubleshooting time."
"On the activity log, I can see the exact details, the visit, and the threat."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"The solution is very good at intercepting traffic before it gets to our data centers."
"The technical support is excellent."
"We have peace of mind that nobody will use malware on us or try to hack our website."
"The setup of Imperva DDoS was easy."
"Incapsula takes care of the CDN infrastructure and bandwidth volume, providing several enterprise "load balancing" features."
"Gives us the ability to trace each connection, and to have logs to be able to differentiate between a positive and a false-positive intruder action."
"We currently do not use the solution's machine-learning-powered Zero-day Automated Protection because of an issue with it... We also use the aGalaxy platform, which is a management platform for the TPS devices. The issue is that some TPS features were added at the TPS level but weren't carried over to aGalaxy, and we manage all of our devices through aGalaxy. So we can't actually use some of the new features that are available on the TPS because that functionality doesn't exist in aGalaxy. That is one of my biggest complaints."
"We have had some issues with implementation. So, it is the only area that needs improvement."
"I rate Thunder TPS seven out of 10 for scalability."
"They have a cloud scrubbing feature that redirects the traffic if the on-prem appliance can't accommodate a large amount of traffic but it's not available where we are."
"Its documentation could be better."
"It is very difficult to implement. It should be made a bit easier to implement. There is also a lack of resources on the internet. They need to develop more resources."
"The last issue we had to contact them about was just a question of a false-positive. The A10 system wasn't supposed to decide what is a false-positive. So if we send it good traffic, it's supposed to just pass that good traffic through. But we opened this last ticket because the A10 did block some of the good traffic. Their support had to tweak it a little bit, but it wasn't anything that took a long time."
"If there's one aspect of A10 that needs improvement it would be the training. All of their training is done online, at least in what we've been exposed to. I would like to have a classroom environment for training... It would give [people] a chance to provision it."
"We would like them to hire people in Sweden because it's quite hard when people are sitting in the UK or Belgium because some of the customers really want them to be local."
"I would like to have support for SSL management and secure DNS."
"Certificate management could be improved."
"Imperva now offers add-ons to add functionality, but I would like to see these included in the product, even if it would cost more."
"The salespeople tend to exaggerate its capabilities, which can cost you money if you don't verify the information."
"Imperva DDoS does not provide version control."
"Imperva always needs to adjust to new versions of cyber attacks, it needs to be faster, improve the resiliency of the software of the solution."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
A10 Thunder TPS is ranked 15th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 12 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 7th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews. A10 Thunder TPS is rated 8.8, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of A10 Thunder TPS writes "A highly stable solution that can be used for load balancing". 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". A10 Thunder TPS is most compared with Arbor DDoS, Cloudflare, Radware DefensePro, Corero and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF. See our A10 Thunder TPS vs. Imperva DDoS report.
See our list of best Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection vendors.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection 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.