Azure Front Door vs Imperva DDoS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Front Door
Ranking in CDN
3rd
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (15th)
Imperva DDoS
Ranking in CDN
6th
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
19th
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the CDN category, the mindshare of Azure Front Door is 22.7%, up from 17.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Imperva DDoS is 5.2%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
CDN
Unique Categories:
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3.8%
Microsoft Security Suite
2.7%
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection
6.0%
 

Featured Reviews

CM
Nov 28, 2023
The product provides excellent documentation and easy-to-use features, and it enables organizations to set up content security policies
Our website is built through a Gatsby process and generic static files. All the static content for the site gets hosted in the CDN. We use Azure Front Door as an entry point for it The solution has improved our organization by allowing us to utilize the Rules Engine feature. Rules Engine is a…
Syed Ubaid Ali Jafri - PeerSpot reviewer
Dec 13, 2016
I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions.
They could improve by minimizing false positive results. Although this occurs less with Imperva, we would like to see some further improvements. We have been using this product for last 1 years, it's result is very impressive. But due to the excessive load on the Web site where thousands of requests‎ are generated from legitimate users, however the request in which any sequential or specialised characters are requested would be directly blocked by impreva . Currently imperva blocks the special character request generated from the user, as I conduct a test where I am parsing the encoded html values of the same special characters to the input field, imperva bypasses these encoded values for example : ' i.e. %27 or / i.e %2F, the WAF bypasses these encoded characters. I hope that this device should have a capability to detect the pattern which is associated with Xss or Xsrf, rather then by not blocking the request which contains any special characters.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"The solution is good."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"​Technical support provides good, quick responses."
"On the activity log, I can see the exact details, the visit, and the threat."
"Integration with IBM AS/400 and Db2 is okay."
"Gives us the ability to trace each connection, and to have logs to be able to differentiate between a positive and a false-positive intruder action."
"Simplifies putting everything in code."
"Provides Anti-DDoS protection, as well as other protections like SQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting, and antiscanner. These types of protection are valuable to the business due to the daily attacks on our portals, and that often cannot be seen without a tool like this."
"We use Imperva DDoS to stop DDoS attacks and reduce the amount of unwanted queries against web services or web scraping."
"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
 

Cons

"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"We faced issues regarding compliance with client procedures. The client had strict compliance rules, and Imperva needed to be on a VM, while the client required containerization, causing a conflict. They went with Imperva for the on-premise version but shelved the cloud project due to too many blockers."
"The log analytics interface within Incapsula isn't really good. For example, if you have to get all logs from there, it's a very cumbersome process."
"A limited tool if you're looking to customize."
"It would be beneficial to include vulnerability management in the solution, similar to what they have for their on-premise solution."
"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."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
"The cost could be lower; our end clients need to have a high budget to purchase this solution."
"Certificate management could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of the solution is good."
"The product is expensive."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"The transition to the premium tier has led to increased costs, making it more expensive than the classic tier."
"It is on a pay-as-you-go basis."
"Varies depending on the needs of the customer."
"The cost is on par with other solutions such as Cloudflare and Akamai."
"Pricing could be more competitive."
"There is a license or subscription renewal that our customers pay."
"The cost is somewhere around $10,000 a site. For every site, you pay individually. For every DNS entry, you have you pay."
"The solution's price is high for small companies."
"​Although the pricing can be a little high, it is worth the protection and security that it offers.​"
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which CDN solutions are best for your needs.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user68487 - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 6, 2013
CloudFlare vs Incapsula: Web Application Firewall
CloudFlare vs Incapsula: Round 2 Web Application Firewall Comparative Penetration Testing Analysis Report v1.0 Summary This document contains the results of a second comparative penetration test conducted by a team of security specialists at Zero Science Lab against two cloud-based Web…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What's the difference between Azure Front Door and Application Gateway?
We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Front Door?
The transition to the premium tier has led to increased costs, making it more expensive than the classic tier. However, we acknowledge that this pricing reflects additional features and capabilities.
What do you like most about Imperva Incapsula?
We use Imperva DDoS to stop DDoS attacks and reduce the amount of unwanted queries against web services or web scraping.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Imperva Incapsula?
The solution is very affordable. It's based on the traffic utilization, the average traffic utilization, not the DDoS traffic. Therefore, if you're being DDoSed, you don't pay extra for the absorpt...
What needs improvement with Imperva Incapsula?
It’s hard to think of an improvement. The three-second service level agreement is already better than the competition. You would ordinarily say something like API protection. However, they've got t...
 

Also Known As

Azure Front-Door
Imperva Incapsula
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Hitachi, BNZ, Bitstamp, Moz, InnoGames, BTCChina, Wix, LivePerson, Zillow and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Front Door vs. Imperva DDoS and other solutions. Updated: June 2024.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.