Compare Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: July 2021.
523,372 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications.""There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection.""The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well.""Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution.""The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good.""Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way.""If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency.""Its inline transferring mode is the most valuable because it is 100% transparent. When you change the IP, there is no change on the network side. If you can't and want to try to reach an IP, you can reach the server IP. There are many other advanced security features in it. The smallest appliances of Imperva can handle the highest traffic at a customer site. For example, a smaller appliance from Imperva can provide you the same security as an F5 product."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pros »

"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 simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects.""This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date.""Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts.""The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs.""Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable.""WAF feature replicates the firewall.""The pricing is quite good."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pros »

Cons
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement.""It would be helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default.""The initial setup could be simplified. Every time you have to install the solution you have to get in touch with support or somebody that can to do that for you.""Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved.""It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself.""I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution.""The user interface could be better.""They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Cons »

"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems.""The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive.""For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved.""Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM.""The security of the product could be adjusted.""It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2.""Scalability can be an issue.""The monitoring on the solution could be better."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"Everybody complains about the price of this solution.""The cost of this solution depends on the platform.""The price of this solution is a little bit high compared to competitors.""There are some licenses that you have to buy to use some features. Its price could be better. Price is always important because, at the end of the day, customers have a budget. If you can meet the budget, you can sell, and if you don't, you cannot sell.""There is a license for this solution and we purchase the license annually with no additional fees."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice »

"It is not expensive.""Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
523,372 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: For ADC, any ADC can do a good job. But in case if you want to add WAF functionality to the same ADC hardware you have to look for other ADC's like F5, Imperva, Radware, Fortinet, etc. 
Top Answer: You can have a look to Imperva Cloud WAF, the anti-DDoS mitigation is under 1s and works very well. I observed a lot of DDoS attacks that were well managed (even not seen by the customer) by Imperva… more »
Top Answer: Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.
Top Answer: Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year.
Top Answer: One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS. We had some requirement for load balancing that it did not support SAP, they should… more »
Ranking
Views
6,411
Comparisons
5,123
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
444
Rating
9.0
Views
20,612
Comparisons
18,535
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
421
Rating
7.6
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
Learn More
Overview

Web application attacks deny services and steal sensitive data. Imperva Web Application Firewall (WAF) analyzes and inspects requests coming in to applications and stops these attacks.

Protect your applications in the cloud and on-premises with the same set of security policies and management capabilities. Safely migrate apps while maintaining full protection.

Deploy Imperva WAF on-premises, in AWS and Azure, or as a cloud service itself. Easily meet the specific security and service level requirements of individual applications.

Imperva WAF protects against the most critical web application security risks: SQL injection, cross-site scripting, illegal resource access, remote file inclusion, and other OWASP Top 10 and Automated Top 20 threats. Imperva security researchers continually monitor the threat landscape and update Imperva WAF with the latest threat data.

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.

Offer
Learn more about Imperva Web Application Firewall
Learn more about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
Sample Customers
BlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell,
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company26%
Comms Service Provider23%
Financial Services Firm9%
Media Company8%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider29%
Financial Services Firm14%
Healthcare Company14%
Government14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider19%
Energy/Utilities Company5%
Government5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business62%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise29%
REVIEWERS
Small Business25%
Midsize Enterprise8%
Large Enterprise67%
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: July 2021.
523,372 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Imperva Web Application Firewall 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 10 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 9.0, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Useful out-of-the-box threat protection, not too complex, and has good technical support". 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 Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Imperva Incapsula, Fortinet FortiWeb and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), AWS WAF and HAProxy. 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.