We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it."
"It's a good product because it supports all the features that ADC solutions in the market can support, like F5 solutions, for example, such as the LTM of F5."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"I think it would be helpful if Fortinet put more video examples on their cookbook site."
"The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives."
"I had a terrible experience with Fortinet support. I only used support once when I bought the solution. I got no response for two days. However, I believe that it's no longer the case. Fortinet solutions have problems when they're launched. For example, we had issues with Fortinet's authenticator when it came out. We also had trouble with FortiNAC in the beginning."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"The product's stability for VMs could be better."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"There could be some limitations that from the converged infrastructure perspective: when you want to converge with everything and you want Imperva to get there easily because it's not a cloud component. For example, when you want to build servers and you're using OneView to manage your software-defined networks, implementing Imperva right away is not that simple. But if you're doing just a simple cloud infrastructure with servers in there, you're good to go. Also, we are not able, with Imperva, to block by signatures. Imperva by itself needs to be complemented with another service to do URL filtering."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"The signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by providing better features, such as improved prevention of zero-day attacks. Additionally, it should include a VR meta-analysis."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
