We performed a comparison between Imperva DDoS and Nexusguard DDoS Protection 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."Imperva DDoS is fairly stable, and its availability is quite high."
"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."
"DDoS protection and WAF are the most valuable features. It is easy to deploy a service. It is easy and quick to deploy to a new website."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is that it is easy to configure."
"The three-second service level agreement is already better than the competition."
"The solution has a very good interface."
"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."
"On the site security, I can see which countries have incidents, whether it was a robot attack, a real human user, or non-human user."
"Cloud Diversion is another good feature packaged with the whole solution. When attack traffic is detected, Cloud Diversion triggers to automatically route our prefix to Nexusguard’s scrubbing center, ensuring that all attack traffic is dropped in the shortest time possible."
"The support team was helpful."
"Based on the support received for implementation, I rate the solution's technical support a nine out of ten."
"Filters can be customized depending on the characteristics of the attack traffic. This feature has made it easier for Nexusguard's SOC team to further isolate any specific attack that can't be blocked by pre-configured mitigation."
"The managed service allows us to confidently rely on Nexusguard’s professional team to take relevant actions as and when required to make sure DDoS attacks are successfully mitigated, ensuring 100% uptime of our service."
"Users would benefit from better documentation. There is official documentation, but sometimes we need more detail. We have some use cases that are not so run of the mill. It would be great if there was a knowledge base that we could go to for more answers."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"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."
"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."
"Incapsula services also provides load balancing services for their service IP address environment. So far, with monitoring their services, the IP address was only changed once."
"Some maintenance must be performed by our IT team."
"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."
"It's quite expensive."
"The solution must provide features for the post-processing of the traffic type and the traffic quality."
"One of the features that should be added to the next release is report generation. Currently, reports can be downloaded every month and are only available at the beginning of each month. It would be nice to generate the reports based on specific dates that we prefer and not have to wait until the next month for the current month’s report."
"There was a certain level of performance degradation in the solution, which I don't know if it can be tuned...In my experience, it is an area that can be improved while also considering the stability and scalability aspects of the solution."
"One thing that we would like to improve from them is to provide more training to SOC team for them to have a deep understanding of the solution so that they would always be ready to answer anything without the need to escalate queries to senior personnel."
"The mitigation scope of Origin Protection is not fully efficient as there could be delays in activating the countermeasures."
Imperva DDoS is ranked 7th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews while Nexusguard DDoS Protection is ranked 13th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 5 reviews. Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8, while Nexusguard DDoS Protection is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nexusguard DDoS Protection writes "A solution requiring straightforward maintenance while remaining cost-effective compared to its competitors in the market". Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF, whereas Nexusguard DDoS Protection is most compared with Cloudflare, Arbor DDoS, Corero, Cloudflare DDoS and Fortinet FortiDDoS. See our Imperva DDoS vs. Nexusguard DDoS Protection 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.