We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Rapid7 AppSpider based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."Imperva is a Gartner leader, so its scalability, performance, and features are excellent."
"The solution is stable."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"It scans all the components developed within a web application."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"The most valuable feature of Rapid7 AppSpider is the vulnerability reporting data. Additionally, the data is reported in a convenient way rather than seeing them as a PDF. We are able to generate all the reports exactly what we want in a flexible way."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"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."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"One of the challenges I have with AppSpider is that it gives you a lot of false positives, especially when compared to other solutions."
"The performance of the solution could improve. When I compare the speed it is slower than others on the market. There are some tricks we use to help speed up the solution."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"The product needs to be able to scale for large companies, like ours. We have millions of IP addresses that need to be scanned, and the scalability is not great."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 26th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. 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 Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Invicti and Qualys Web Application Scanning.
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.
