Compare Akamai Kona vs. Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall

Akamai Kona is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews while Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 5 reviews. Akamai Kona is rated 7.6, while Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona writes "Enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall writes "Gives me peace of mind, blocks everything we need it to block". Akamai Kona is most compared with Shape Security, AWS WAF and Prolexic, whereas Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, Imperva Incapsula and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our Akamai Kona vs. Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Kona vs. Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
365,820 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
It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure.It is scalable for DDoS.

Read more »

There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection.It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications.The compliance is the most valuable aspect.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.Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features.Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance.

Read more »

Cons
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.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.

Read more »

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.Their portal is very limited and needs improvement.It's a complicated tool to keep.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.The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
Everybody complains about the price of this solution.Make sure you understand the way that Imperva charges. It's very affordable. However, I would like to see a package with the Virtual Patching included. You get to do patching separately.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
365,820 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
7,208
Comparisons
5,170
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
416
Avg. Rating
7.5
Views
4,546
Comparisons
3,728
Reviews
4
Average Words per Review
646
Avg. Rating
9.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Learn
Akamai
Imperva
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
Learn more about Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall
Sample Customers
AvidMobile, itBitBlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm17%
Comms Service Provider17%
Manufacturing Company12%
Media Company10%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Kona vs. Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
365,820 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email