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."The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"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."
"Incapsula takes care of the CDN infrastructure and bandwidth volume, providing several enterprise "load balancing" features."
"On the real time, you can see live traffic, which is flowing into our website."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is that it is easy to configure."
"Setup was straightforward, very simple. I only entered the domain and Incapsula returned the DNS data that I needed to change for the protection to be configured."
"The technical support is excellent."
"Technical support was very helpful."
"There are quite a few useful Imperva Incapsula features. For example, one of them is the reports. The graphics are very good and it's easy to configure. The whole process is very fast and reliable too. They have good tech support as well."
"They should make the implementation process faster."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"AWS WAF could improve by making the overall management easier. Many people that have started working with AWS WAF do not have an easy time. They should make it easy to use."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"The product must provide more features."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"The setup is complicated."
"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."
"Certificate management could be improved."
"The rules surrounding the making of web applications could be improved."
"The weakest point of Imperva is their first level of support, which should be improved. They should also improve the access and security logs viewing directly on the portal. I would like to see better access and security logs through the portal and not only through a SIM solution. Currently, if you want to explore your access and security logs from Imperva, you need a SIM tool or a SIM infrastructure on your side to do it. You can't do it manually or directly through the portal, which is a big problem for us. I had a call yesterday with Imperva for the roadmap, and I just told them this. They agreed that this is an improvement point from their side."
"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."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
"It needs to be improved every time there are new attacks."
"The solution needs to improve Integration with third parties for their on-prem deployment models. The integration is not that good yet."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 16th 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, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Radware Cloud WAF Service, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and Imperva Web Application Firewall. 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.