We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall 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 initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"There are many features. There is ease of deployment. You can deploy the Imperva Web Application Firewall in two to three minutes. After that, you have to set the policies. For setting policies, you have toggle buttons. You can turn something on or off."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"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 solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The management can be improved."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Radware Alteon. See our Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
