We performed a comparison between Azure Front Door and Imperva DDoS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two CDN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"The solution is good."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"There is no need to have an appliance in house for the services because it is on the cloud."
"IncapRules is one of the most valuable features, as you can create your own security and access control rules on top of your security policy. Using IncapRules we were able to easily block Layer 7 DDoS attacks several times."
"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."
"It is a stable solution."
"The technical support is excellent."
"It blocks all types of attacks."
"The three-second service level agreement is already better than the competition."
"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."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"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."
"There’s nothing that’s missing in terms of features."
"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."
"It would be beneficial to include vulnerability management in the solution, similar to what they have for their on-premise solution."
"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."
"It's quite expensive."
"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."
"I am not sure if this application has a policy where you can create your custom policy and run it as our firewall. We should have some ability to also create some custom policy, then run it as a firewall."
Azure Front Door is ranked 2nd in CDN with 10 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 5th in CDN with 74 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". 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". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and AWS Global Accelerator, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF. See our Azure Front Door vs. Imperva DDoS report.
See our list of best CDN vendors and best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all CDN 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.