We compared Imperva DDoS and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Imperva DDoS seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers feel that because Imperva Web Application Firewall can be difficult to use, Imperva DDoS is a better investment.
"We have peace of mind that nobody will use malware on us or try to hack our website."
"An improvement has been to our website: It increases the speed of our response, the capacity of the site, and optimizes the bandwidth."
"DDoS protection and WAF are the most valuable features. It is easy to deploy a service. It is easy and quick to deploy to a new website."
"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The solution is very good at intercepting traffic before it gets to our data centers."
"Technical support was very helpful."
"The complete solution is valuable for everything it delivers and the protection it offers."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"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."
"The rules surrounding the making of web applications could be improved."
"The solution should integrate with something that looks at continuous security management."
"Imperva always needs to adjust to new versions of cyber attacks, it needs to be faster, improve the resiliency of the software of the solution."
"It would be beneficial to include vulnerability management in the solution, similar to what they have for their on-premise solution."
"It needs to be improved every time there are new attacks."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"The cost could be lower; our end clients need to have a high budget to purchase this solution."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"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."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"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."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva DDoS is ranked 16th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 74 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. 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 Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and Fastly, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Barracuda Web Application Firewall. See our Imperva DDoS 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.