We performed a comparison between Check Point DDoS Protector 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."Currently, we have fewer incidents with viruses. We improved our IQ operations and security using this solution. Our company's better after using Check Point."
"This product uses auto-learning and behavioral analysis to establish baselines for legitimate traffic, and automatically detects and blocks traffic behavior that does not conform."
"One of its most outstanding functions is the zero-day DDOS."
"This comprehensive tool validates and exploits complex vulnerabilities that other vendors fail to find and resolve to increase security."
"It can be deployed as a hardware appliance, virtual appliance, or as a cloud service."
"Check Point detects and automatically mitigates attacks, which helps our organization protect our infrastructure."
"The is a really low level of the false-positive alerts (when the clean traffic is marked as DDoS) due to some advanced techniques used by Check Point under the hood."
"From my experience, the best part of this solution is behavioral DDoS protection. The DDoS Protector can monitor the traffic, and based on the behavior, it can decide which traffic is malicious and which traffic is regular. It works dynamically, and it's a very good solution."
"The dashboard is good and user-friendly."
"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."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The setup of Imperva DDoS was easy."
"They're quite easy to install and quite easy to set up. Clients really like that. Especially when you're dealing with the cloud, it's really easy."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"On the real time, you can see live traffic, which is flowing into our website."
"The solution is very good at intercepting traffic before it gets to our data centers."
"The Check Point support language is only in English."
"Monitoring and reporting are the things that can be introduced in the future."
"It does not provide the capability to upload data for blacklisting/whitelisting in bulk."
"Check Point should develop a DDoS solution because they don't have one and we need to use another solution, in our case, Imperva. This is a problem because we need to have two firewalls. We would like to only have one solution because it would improve the management, we would have fewer incidents, and we wouldn't need to talk to more than one person for support."
"Check Point DDoS Protector does not provide the ability to upload data for the blacklist/whitelist in bulk, which is one of the big points that need to be improved to facilitate configurations."
"For a long time, there was no software version of R80.10 available for the Check Point DDoS Protector software appliances, and we had to stay on the quite outdated R77.30 version."
"The mitigation part could be improved."
"The solution should greatly improve its interface."
"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."
"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."
"I miss being able to integrate the dashboard with other BI tools we are using. We have to export and import data to be able to present it, and doing so is a lot of work."
"The solution needs to improve Integration with third parties for their on-prem deployment models. The integration is not that good yet."
"It would be better if we were able to manage and apply changes to multiple websites/web applications, and search WAF logs for multiple websites, via the Incapsula dashboard."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
"I would like to have support for SSL management and secure DNS."
"The log analytics interface within Incapsula isn't really good. For example, if you have to get all logs from there, it's a very cumbersome process."
Check Point DDoS Protector is ranked 12th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 11 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 7th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews. Check Point DDoS Protector is rated 8.0, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Check Point DDoS Protector writes "Good support and effective against SSL attacks, but the dashboard is complicated". 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". Check Point DDoS Protector is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Arbor DDoS, Cloudflare and Fortinet FortiDDoS, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF. See our Check Point DDoS Protector 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.