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.
"Imperva has a complete picture of how the applications are utilizing it. It is handy. DDoS is good. It has an internally managed database. It is very easy to integrate. We have integrated it with SIEM services."
"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."
"Imperva monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"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."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"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 product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"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."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"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."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"The product's performance should be better."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
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.