We performed a comparison between Imperva DDoS and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudflare, NETSCOUT, Akamai and others in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection."It fits our requirements, as well as our budget."
"The three-second service level agreement is already better than the competition."
"We use Imperva DDoS to stop DDoS attacks and reduce the amount of unwanted queries against web services or web scraping."
"The technical support is excellent."
"On the site security, I can see which countries have incidents, whether it was a robot attack, a real human user, or non-human user."
"This product is a reliable defense from malicious attacks on a network environment."
"The solution has a very good interface."
"Provides Anti-DDoS protection, as well as other protections like SQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting, and antiscanner. These types of protection are valuable to the business due to the daily attacks on our portals, and that often cannot be seen without a tool like this."
"The scalability is acceptable."
"Remote access is excellent."
"They have many different options with Palo Alto WildFire and the set-up is quick. If you have all the details in hand, it does not take more than 15 minutes to deploy a firewall."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is how it keeps up-to-date with viruses."
"The technical support is good."
"The solution is easy to use and the Panorama feature is good. The software management or the malware blocking and some authentication management system are good."
"The most effective feature of WildFire for threat analysis is its collaboration with other security profiles on our Palo Alto firewall."
"The solution is completely integrated with all the other Palo Alto products. I think that it is the best part for endpoint protection. The firewall features include URL and DNS filtering, threat protection, and antivirus."
"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."
"Users would benefit from better documentation. There is official documentation, but sometimes we need more detail. We have some use cases that are not so run of the mill. It would be great if there was a knowledge base that we could go to for more answers."
"I am not sure if this application has a policy where you can create your custom policy and run it as our firewall. We should have some ability to also create some custom policy, then run it as a firewall."
"It needs to be improved every time there are new attacks."
"We had an issue when securing the web applications for DDoS protection."
"It would be beneficial to include vulnerability management in the solution, similar to what they have for their on-premise solution."
"The solution needs to improve Integration with third parties for their on-prem deployment models. The integration is not that good yet."
"The solution should integrate with something that looks at continuous security management."
"It's not really their problem, it's a problem across the board. There will always be problems with interrupted traffic. We have to set it up where we're playing a middle man game where we're stripping it out, looking at it, and then putting it back together and sending it on its way. That requires CPU cycles. And there's some overhead with that."
"The system performance degrades after the solution has been deployed for some time. The data that it gives us becomes a little bit slow. When you try to get some data for troubleshooting, it seems like it's working hard to extract that data."
"There are certain changes that I was expecting in the previous version, and I hope that they are soon fixed. All of the problems that I have faced so far have been resolved."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
"I would like to see them continue on their developmental roadmap for the product."
"The solution can improve its traffic management."
"The data analytical system for deployment needs to improve."
"The threat intelligence that we receiving in the reporting was not as expected. We were expecting more. Additionally, we should be able to whitelist a specific file based on a variety of attributes."
Imperva DDoS is ranked 6th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Fortinet FortiSandbox.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection 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.