We performed a comparison between Azure Front Door 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 price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"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."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"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."
"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 is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"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."
"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."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our Azure Front Door 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.
