We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"In terms of F5 Advanced WAF's most valuable features, I would definitely say its stability. F5 is one the most stable products. Either as the load balancer or the web application firewall, it is very stable."
"I like all of the features, but the main one is the attack signatures."
"There is no need to worry about updating signatures because WAF will automatically update the signatures for you."
"The support experience is better than average."
"Feature-wise, they are always cutting edge and up-to-date. Many features aren't available via competitors. There's always a lot of enhanced critical features that just aren't available through anyone else, or, if they are, are too lightweight."
"The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features."
"The most valuable feature is that it is secure."
"The solution has a very good interface."
"It is an effective threat mitigation tool."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is that it is easy to configure."
"It blocks all types of attacks."
"There is no need to have an appliance in house for the services because it is on the cloud."
"Its unique interface for managing security performance and ease of use are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Scalability could be improved."
"I would say their graphical interface, the GUI. I don't like the GUI as much as before."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"The contextual-based component needs a lot of help to catch up with the next-gen products."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"We usually use a third-party tool for logging and reporting. It would be nice if we could do that right on this solution. They have one, but it's not very stable. Logging and reporting effectively would be a big enhancement."
"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."
"The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use."
"The rules surrounding the making of web applications could be improved."
"Imperva should have more points of presence in Africa."
"I would like to have support for SSL management and secure DNS."
"The log analytics interface within Incapsula isn't really good. For example, if you have to get all logs from there, it's a very cumbersome process."
"It's quite expensive."
"Certificate management could be improved."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
"The weakest point of Imperva is their first level of support, which should be improved. They should also improve the access and security logs viewing directly on the portal. I would like to see better access and security logs through the portal and not only through a SIM solution. Currently, if you want to explore your access and security logs from Imperva, you need a SIM tool or a SIM infrastructure on your side to do it. You can't do it manually or directly through the portal, which is a big problem for us. I had a call yesterday with Imperva for the roadmap, and I just told them this. They agreed that this is an improvement point from their side."
"It's more expensive than other solutions and depending on the modules, there can be additional fees."
"F5 bundles up services and the bundle is what you pay for rather than individual components."
"Its price is fair. We have done a couple of deals where they were able to give some kind of discount to the customers. The price was initially high for the customers, but after a couple of negotiations, it came within their budget. They were happy with that."
"There are various plans available for Fortinet FortiWeb Cloud WAF as a Service, including a trial version."
"It is expensive. Its price should be better. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. Its licensing is also based on the model. There are no additional costs."
"I don't have any issue with the pricing of this solution."
"The cost is on par with other solutions such as Cloudflare and Akamai."
"It is not expensive compared to the other similar solutions in this category."
"It is a very expensive solution. The price is very high. A lot of customers tell us that they would love to use Imperva more. I have some customers who have 50 websites, but they have only 10 websites on Imperva because of the price. They would love to have all their websites running through Imperva, but they can't. They have to choose the more critical websites to protect because the price is very high. It is a very good product, but it is too expensive. If you buy a plan for 20 megabytes and you don't consume all of your 20 megabytes, it is okay, but if you consume more, you are charged for the superior traffic."
"The cost is somewhere around $10,000 a site. For every site, you pay individually. For every DNS entry, you have you pay."
"It is expensive."
F5's Advanced WAF is built on proven F5 technology and goes beyond reactive security such as static signatures and reputation to proactively detect and mitigate bots, secure credentials and sensitive data, and defend against application denial-of-service (DoS). Advanced WAF redefines application security to address the most prevalent threats organizations face today.
Advanced WAF is offered as an appliance, virtual edition, and as a managed service—providing automated WAF services that meet complex deployment and management requirements while protecting your apps with great precision. It is the most effective solution for guarding modern applications and data from existing and emerging threats while maintaining compliance with key regulatory mandates.
Advanced WAF redefines application security to address the most prevalent threats organizations face today:
•Web attacks that steal credentials and gain unauthorized access across user accounts.
•Application layer attacks that evade static security based on reputation and manual signatures.
•New attack surfaces and threats due to the rapid adoption of APIs.
•OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities
Imperva Incapsula is a cloud-based application delivery service that protects websites and safeguards web applications and their data from attacks, and improves their performance by enhancing user experience. Incapsula includes a security platform with a web application firewall, DDoS mitigation, content delivery network, and global load balancer to maximize performance.
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews while Imperva Incapsula is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.4, while Imperva Incapsula is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "It is very stable as as a load balancer or a web application firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Incapsula writes "There is not too much to know but that it is one of the best products of this type that you can get". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, NGINX App Protect, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare, whereas Imperva Incapsula is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Imperva Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Imperva Incapsula 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.