We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: According to the parameters we compared, Imperva Web Application Firewall is the more popular solution. It is easier to deploy than Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and has solid features and excellent technical support. However, users are happier with Azure’s pricing.
"We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Imperva is a Gartner leader, so its scalability, performance, and features are excellent."
"The most valuable features of Imperva Web Application Firewall are the monitoring of databases and the dashboards are easy to understand."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by adding more features to the dashboard. increasing the visibility of the real-time events, besides configuring the administration itself."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"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."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
