We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) 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 features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"There are many features. There is ease of deployment. You can deploy the Imperva Web Application Firewall in two to three minutes. After that, you have to set the policies. For setting policies, you have toggle buttons. You can turn something on or off."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"Fastly (Signal Sciences) integrates and tags the intermittent traffic based on patterns. It generates signals and provides them in a dashboard where we can view them and decide whether to allow or deny traffic. It's a more advanced and easy-to-navigate dashboard."
"When configuring a web application firewall using Signal Sciences, we configure a rule whereby no one except a few people can access the application."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to set up the rules easily."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pros →
"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 reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"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."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one."
"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."
"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."
"Fastly don't support caching for China users. That's the only feature lacking compared to Akamai."
"Even if we create some custom rules, Signal Sciences cannot capture some of the malicious traffic."
"The areas that could be improved in Signal Sciences include the effectiveness of rules, as many didn't function optimally and required custom rule-writing to address bypasses for WAF."
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Cons →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is ranked 28th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) writes "Offers Varnish Configuration Language (VCL) and provides enhanced dashboards, making it easy to identify and allow or deny traffic based on the signals it provides". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) is most compared with AWS WAF, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Azure Web Application Firewall and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. The Fastly Next-Gen WAF (powered by Signal Sciences) 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.
