We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and 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 of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, F5 Advanced WAF seems to be the marginally superior solution. Our reviewers find that Imperva Web Application Firewall‘s cost makes it prohibitive for some organizations to afford.
"Provides good protection from attacks."
"Customers find the load balancer feature as the most valuable."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features is the Local Traffic Manager."
"The most valuable feature is artificial intelligence and to get extra internal access."
"It is also quite intuitive and user-friendly. They have several webinars that are actually like labs. You can use these webinars to learn about how to use all features of the product."
"There are a lot of good features."
"F5 Advanced WAF is a stable solution, we are satisfied. It is more stable than ForiWeb."
"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 solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"There are many features. There is ease of deployment. You can deploy the Imperva Web Application Firewall in two to three minutes. After that, you have to set the policies. For setting policies, you have toggle buttons. You can turn something on or off."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"There should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable."
"One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy."
"The Sandbox integration feature could be improved."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"The reporting could be clearer and embedded to include our movement data."
"I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF."
"I think the deployment templates can be better."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"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."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"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."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 53 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 45 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our F5 Advanced 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.