We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It blocks all types of attacks."
"Simplifies putting everything in code."
"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."
"The solution has a very good interface."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"The solution is very good at intercepting traffic before it gets to our data centers."
"There is no need to have an appliance in house for the services because it is on the cloud."
"There are quite a few useful Imperva Incapsula features. For example, one of them is the reports. The graphics are very good and it's easy to configure. The whole process is very fast and reliable too. They have good tech support as well."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The pricing is quite good."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Its price could be improved. It is quite expensive. It will be good if we could export the configuration. Currently, to control the configuration, we need to go to each website, which is not very convenient."
"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."
"The rules surrounding the making of web applications could be improved."
"The salespeople tend to exaggerate its capabilities, which can cost you money if you don't verify the information."
"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 quite expensive."
"Imperva should have more points of presence in Africa."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"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 expensive."
"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."
"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."
"It is not expensive."
"Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
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.
Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.
To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.
Imperva Incapsula is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews. Imperva Incapsula is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". Imperva Incapsula is most compared with Cloudflare, Imperva Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF, Akamai and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), AWS WAF and Cloudflare. See our Imperva Incapsula vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.