We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiWeb 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 most valuable feature is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"The solution has a good sandbox feature."
"Fortinet FortiWeb is priced well."
"It helps us prevent attacks on servers."
"Technical support is very good."
"I like FortiWeb's usability and ease of configuration. It's simple to configure rules and exceptions inside the attack log. We block everything by default. If something isn't working, we ask the system admin to adjust the template and add exceptions."
"I have recently been looking at the SSL certificate features and the learning mode of the appliance. This appliance learns from the pattern of SSL attacks."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Fail-Open."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The solution could improve by providing more integration with solutions other than the Fortinet family."
"The support side of things can be improved."
"Fortinet FortiWeb could improve data integration."
"It costs too much."
"The solution is rather complicated. If you know what to do, it's not bad, but it's complicated for a first time user to configure the solution. What I'd like to improve are the custom signatures."
"Fortinet WAF came out recently, and there is not much feedback about customer experience. For each project, customers ask about the scenarios and references of the customers who have implemented this solution, which we don't have. They need to simplify the customer experience and provide more information so that we can propose Fortinet Fortiweb as a WAF solution to customers and convince them. They need to improve their service and training. We need good training to implement and use it properly and know more about it. We still don't know much about Fortinet WAF. We didn't get any proper training sessions. Other vendors like Cisco, Palo Alto, Check Point, and Barracuda provide such sessions. Whenever we receive a request from a customer for this solution, we just give the price. We don't propose this solution because we don't know much about it. We propose whatever we are familiar with and what is supported."
"We would like the interface to be easier to use and more user-friendly. The interface needs to be enhanced."
"Fortinet FortiWeb is not scalable. You'll need more budget to change the hardware."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"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."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by adding more features to the dashboard. increasing the visibility of the real-time events, besides configuring the administration itself."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our Fortinet FortiWeb 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.
