We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector 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 support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"The solution can scale extremely well."
"The product is user-friendly."
"The product has a good UI."
"It is scalable for DDoS."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"The product has a good user interface."
"Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"The solution can scale."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"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 most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"It's fine for a simple tool, but as I recall, if you encounter a lot of bots, scrapers, and other things, you'll need this tool bot and this other thing they offer called Bot Manager."
"The custom rules must be improved."
"Akamai needs to focus on quickly responding to risks, even those that may potentially be of zero threat..Maybe some of the documentation is a little confusing. They have a lot of different places where you can go to get information, and some of the information is quite out of date."
"There are some issues with pushing configurations across a network. It still takes about 20 minutes and that means to retract it's another 20 minutes."
"In terms of precedence of Akamai rules, the last one is implemented. That is the one that is operational. If two rules contradict, the last one is implemented. We had a clash, but it was really tough to find that out. I would like to have a rulebook because, in their architecture documentation, it is not mentioned anywhere that if two rules clash, the last one works, and if it does not work, then what to do. This is something we were debating today with their tech support. With AWS, we get documents for the issues so that they do not occur in the future. Akamai's support and knowledge base needs to be improved."
"The product should provide a secure NTP."
"The WAF features definitely have a lot of room for improvement. A lot of the WAF is really basic. For some products or some of our solutions, we need to run a second layer of more advanced WAF. If it had better layer seven protection then we would not need a second WAF."
"The solution could offer even more integrations."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"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."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Akamai App and API Protector writes "Easy to learn and gives us a report of traffic". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Prolexic 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 Imperva DDoS. See our Akamai App and API Protector 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.
