We performed a comparison between AWS WAF vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: AWS WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall come out about equal in this comparison. AWS WAF has a slight edge when it comes to pricing, but Imperva Web Application Firewall has a slight edge when it comes to support.
"The solution is stable."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"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 WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network."
"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."
"The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"The solution is stable."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"The cost must be reduced."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"The signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"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."
"Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"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."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 51 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 45 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our AWS WAF 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.