We performed a comparison between Azure Front Door 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."You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"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."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"The solution is scalable."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"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 is a quick switch between any of the the nodes if something goes wrong, where there's a there's an attack against a specific area. The security setup is reasonably easy. It's not a problem to do setups and rules and integrations. And, yeah, just the the back end team is also very willing to insist if there's questions that that we cannot answer or with these questions that we do have"
"The solution can scale."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"The user interface could be better."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 44 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Cloudflare, Akamai and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Azure Front Door 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.