Compare Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Top Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: September 2021.
536,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it.""The CDN and the WAF features are the best.""The solution can scale extremely well.""The features are powerful and better than F5.""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."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Pros »

"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good.""Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way.""If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency.""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.""The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores.""The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all.""The solution can scale.""The solution is stable."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pros »

Cons
"The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved.""Could integrate more features for each security.""The pricing could be reduced a bit.""Support and the pricing need to improve.""It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Cons »

"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.""I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution.""The user interface could be better.""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.""The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently.""Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down.""In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy.""I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"Akamai is very expensive.""There is no license at all for Akamai. They are going to charge us only for the usage."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The cost of this solution depends on the platform.""The price of this solution is a little bit high compared to competitors.""There are some licenses that you have to buy to use some features. Its price could be better. Price is always important because, at the end of the day, customers have a budget. If you can meet the budget, you can sell, and if you don't, you cannot sell.""There is a license for this solution and we purchase the license annually with no additional fees.""There are a couple of different licensing models."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
536,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The solution can scale extremely well.
Top Answer: The product really isn't very user-friendly. They could improve it so that it's easier for their customers to navigate and use. From a management perspective, it's difficult. Managing these rules with… more »
Top Answer: We primarily use the solution as an application firewall.
Top Answer: For ADC, any ADC can do a good job. But in case if you want to add WAF functionality to the same ADC hardware you have to look for other ADC's like F5, Imperva, Radware, Fortinet, etc. 
Top Answer: You can have a look to Imperva Cloud WAF, the anti-DDoS mitigation is under 1s and works very well. I observed a lot of DDoS attacks that were well managed (even not seen by the customer) by Imperva… more »
Top Answer: Imperva is a strong choice, given their security focus and ongoing R&D into the product in areas such as bot management.
Ranking
Views
8,745
Comparisons
6,883
Reviews
5
Average Words per Review
396
Rating
8.2
Views
6,451
Comparisons
5,219
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
421
Rating
9.0
Comparisons
Also Known As
Kona Site Defender, Kona
Learn More
Overview
Akamai's Kona Site Defender extends security beyond the data center while maintaining site performance and availability in the face of fast-changing threats. It leverages the power of the Akamai Intelligent Platform to detect, identify and mitigate Denial-of-Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks before they ever reach the origin.

Web application attacks deny services and steal sensitive data. Imperva Web Application Firewall (WAF) analyzes and inspects requests coming in to applications and stops these attacks.

Protect your applications in the cloud and on-premises with the same set of security policies and management capabilities. Safely migrate apps while maintaining full protection.

Deploy Imperva WAF on-premises, in AWS and Azure, or as a cloud service itself. Easily meet the specific security and service level requirements of individual applications.

Imperva WAF protects against the most critical web application security risks: SQL injection, cross-site scripting, illegal resource access, remote file inclusion, and other OWASP Top 10 and Automated Top 20 threats. Imperva security researchers continually monitor the threat landscape and update Imperva WAF with the latest threat data.

Offer
Learn more about Akamai Kona Site Defender
Learn more about Imperva Web Application Firewall
Sample Customers
AvidMobile, itBit
BlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company30%
Financial Services Firm14%
Comms Service Provider14%
Media Company5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company26%
Comms Service Provider24%
Financial Services Firm9%
Media Company7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business33%
Large Enterprise67%
REVIEWERS
Small Business61%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise26%
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: September 2021.
536,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 5 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.2, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona Site Defender writes "Great technical support, scales extremely well, and is very stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Simple to maintain, easy to configure, and easy to scale". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with Akamai Prolexic Routed, AWS WAF, F5 Shape Security, Cloudflare and Azure Front Door, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Imperva Incapsula, Fortinet FortiWeb and Barracuda Web Application Firewall. See our Akamai Kona Site Defender 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.