We compared Imperva DDoS and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Imperva DDoS seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers feel that because Imperva Web Application Firewall can be difficult to use, Imperva DDoS is a better investment.
"They're quite easy to install and quite easy to set up. Clients really like that. Especially when you're dealing with the cloud, it's really easy."
"Incapsula takes care of the CDN infrastructure and bandwidth volume, providing several enterprise "load balancing" features."
"We use Imperva DDoS to stop DDoS attacks and reduce the amount of unwanted queries against web services or web scraping."
"It is a stable solution."
"Scalability is pretty easy on the base platform. You just add another, and you're ready to go."
"Setup was straightforward, very simple. I only entered the domain and Incapsula returned the DNS data that I needed to change for the protection to be configured."
"I like the user-friendly interface."
"The setup of Imperva DDoS was easy."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"The solution is scalable."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"Imperva always needs to adjust to new versions of cyber attacks, it needs to be faster, improve the resiliency of the software of the solution."
"It's quite expensive."
"The cost could be lower; our end clients need to have a high budget to purchase this solution."
"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."
"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."
"I miss being able to integrate the dashboard with other BI tools we are using. We have to export and import data to be able to present it, and doing so is a lot of work."
"Imperva now offers add-ons to add functionality, but I would like to see these included in the product, even if it would cost more."
"The solution needs to improve Integration with third parties for their on-prem deployment models. The integration is not that good yet."
"I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"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."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"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."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva DDoS is ranked 18th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 74 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Imperva DDoS vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
