We compared Imperva DDoS and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Imperva DDoS seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers feel that because Imperva Web Application Firewall can be difficult to use, Imperva DDoS is a better investment.
"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
"Technical support was very helpful."
"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."
"Incapsula takes care of the CDN infrastructure and bandwidth volume, providing several enterprise "load balancing" features."
"The most valuable features are DDoS protection."
"The three-second service level agreement is already better than the competition."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"There is no need to have an appliance in house for the services because it is on the cloud."
"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."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"It has fewer false positives"
"The WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"Some maintenance must be performed by our IT team."
"I would like to see automated reporting to improve visibility."
"The solution should integrate with something that looks at continuous security management."
"We would like them to hire people in Sweden because it's quite hard when people are sitting in the UK or Belgium because some of the customers really want them to be local."
"Imperva now offers add-ons to add functionality, but I would like to see these included in the product, even if it would cost more."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
"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."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"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."
"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."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"It would be helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default."
"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."
"The initial setup could be simplified. Every time you have to install the solution you have to get in touch with support or somebody that can to do that for you."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva DDoS is ranked 18th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 74 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. 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 Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Imperva DDoS 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.