We performed a comparison between AWS WAF vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: AWS WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall come out about equal in this comparison. AWS WAF has a slight edge when it comes to pricing, but Imperva Web Application Firewall has a slight edge when it comes to support.
"The ease of deployment of the product is valuable to me."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The customizable features are good."
"The solution is stable."
"If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"There is a quick switch between any of the the nodes if something goes wrong, where there's a there's an attack against a specific area. The security setup is reasonably easy. It's not a problem to do setups and rules and integrations. And, yeah, just the the back end team is also very willing to insist if there's questions that that we cannot answer or with these questions that we do have"
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The cost must be reduced."
"We need more support as we go global."
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"We should be able to do proper whitelisting."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"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."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our AWS WAF 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.