We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: According to the parameters we compared, Imperva Web Application Firewall is the more popular solution. It is easier to deploy than Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and has solid features and excellent technical support. However, users are happier with Azure’s pricing.
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"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 solution is stable."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"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 solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The pricing is quite good."
"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."
"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."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"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 support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"The product's performance should be better."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.