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."It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure."
"The CDN and the WAF features are the best."
"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"I can attest to its benefits in terms of understanding and mitigating threats...The solution's technical support team seems to be pretty responsive."
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."
"I like that the charges are all based on usage and labor costs. For the time that we spend onboarding almost 252020 FQDN, Akamai charges us only for the traffic usage, but it's only charging us for the labor costs for onboarding."
"Everything will be handled by Akamai's system before it reaches our infrastructure."
"The product has a good user interface."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"Its inline transferring mode is the most valuable because it is 100% transparent. When you change the IP, there is no change on the network side. If you can't and want to try to reach an IP, you can reach the server IP. There are many other advanced security features in it. The smallest appliances of Imperva can handle the highest traffic at a customer site. For example, a smaller appliance from Imperva can provide you the same security as an F5 product."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit."
"One area where Akamai can improve is the captcha part. Cloudflare provides a captcha if there are a certain number of threats. For example, I can assign that if there are 10 requests within a second from a single IP, it should send a captcha to the user. The user should fill in the captcha, and only after that, the user should be able to access our website. This captcha feature should be built into Bot Manager. I love this captcha feature of Cloudflare."
"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."
"I do not see any area for improvement. Akamai is already maintaining its own databases for the security concerns, vulnerabilities, and attacks that are there. If anything, they should have a solution in the infrastructure security area as well. They should not be only in cloud cybersecurity; they should also be in infrastructure security."
"Akamai App and API Protector is very new to me, so I do not have any insights on improvement areas for the product. However, when we ask for some help, it can take some time. We understand that the job is done by professionals, but if that time can be reduced, it would be great."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"We are experimenting with EdgeWorkers to write our own code at the Edge level. It could grow to be much better."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"The user interface could be better."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
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 45 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 Cloudflare. 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.
