We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Radware Bot Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"Very scalable and very stable firewall for web applications, with a good interface in its cloud version. Mitigation is its most valuable feature. The technical support for this product is also good."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"I like how Bot Manager automatically detects when a suspicious user attempts to download content from your website."
"The solution provides a rating of the sophistication of the bot attack."
"Bot Manager's behavioral modeling and intelligence help us distinguish between harmless and malicious bots."
"Bot Manager is an excellent tool for analyzing traffic to detect suspicious patterns. It uses artificial intelligence to identify malicious behavior."
"It's very good at categorizing the different types of bots, whether they're malicious or good. Bot is a very generic term. It could be good, it could be bad. Quite a lot of legitimate businesses are using bot-type services to just scrape the internet for information."
"The most valuable feature is the bot management itself and the way it has stopped bots from scraping our site, with its AI mechanism. Its ability to detect and mitigate bots is really good."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"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."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"We're missing links to their modules for installation and configuration. They have most of them available already, but there were situations for mobile applications that, when they released a new version, were not stable. We had to ask them to send a link by email, and that could be made accessible in the portal."
"It would be good to have more integrations. It's very hard to get data in and out of their portal. It doesn't have any integrations with any of our tools, such as our SIEM tool. It only depends on emails. Having that tied into the warehouse, SIEM, and maybe our on-call tools would be very helpful because it would just give us a holistic picture of everything."
"Bot Manager is doing its job, but I think the behavioral modeling could be improved by adding fingerprinting and automation. Remediation should be automated so that it doesn't require any intervention by the user."
"Radware Bot Manager is a little costly but not too expensive. It's in the middle."
"It would be beneficial to have a link from the WAF to the Bot Manager portal available so we do not have to log in again."
"I would like more ability to configure custom rules. Currently, I need to open a ticket with support to request a specific rule that isn't available in the console. In some cases, I don't have visibility into the logs or they are too complicated to analyze."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while Radware Bot Manager is ranked 3rd in Bot Management with 8 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Radware Bot Manager is rated 9.2. 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 Radware Bot Manager writes "Categorizes different types of bots very well and is very effective at detecting and mitigating bots in real time". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas Radware Bot Manager is most compared with Fastly, F5 Shape Security, Akamai Bot Manager, Cloudflare and AWS WAF. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Radware Bot Manager report.
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.
