We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."it has TCP LAN and WAN optimization features. It has has caching."
"We enjoy its overall ease of use."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is IP Intelligence."
"The most helpful thing is that it's open-source. It's very easy to program and customize."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"The value and impact of using F5 BIG-IP LTM for application delivery control in our organization are significant."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The most valuable features of Imperva Web Application Firewall are the monitoring of databases and the dashboards are easy to understand."
"It has fewer false positives"
"They need to develop the reporting tools further."
"Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing."
"It's a very expensive solution."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface."
"I think the logging could be improved."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery."
"If one virtual portion is unavailable, it can cause issues."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"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."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 44 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Radware Alteon. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall report.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.