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.
"It has fewer false positives"
"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."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"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 scalable."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The pricing is quite good."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"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."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"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."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
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 3rd 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 AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door 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.