Azure Web Application Firewall vs Imperva Web Application Firewall comparison

Microsoft and Imperva are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. Microsoft is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.5, while Imperva is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.8. Microsoft holds a 4.2% mindshare in WAF, compared to Imperva’s 5.6% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Imperva users who would recommend it.

Azure Web Application Firewall

Read 15 Azure Web Application Firewall reviews

3,791 Views
3,033 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Read 52 Imperva Web Application Firewall reviews

4,782 Views
4,495 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Azure Web Application Firewall

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Imperva Web Application Firewall and Azure Web Application Firewall compete in the web security product category. Imperva seems to have the upper hand due to its feature-rich environment that appeals to advanced security needs, although Azure offers more affordable and flexible pricing options.

Features: Imperva Web Application Firewall offers advanced features like correlated attack validation, threat intelligence, and virtual patching. Users find its dynamic profiling and ease of integration appealing. Azure Web Application Firewall offers ease of configuration within Azure or AWS and flexibility in creating custom rules, and it effectively filters against false positives.

Room for Improvement: Imperva's areas needing improvement include UI intuitiveness, policy management, and more seamless integrations. Users report challenges with real-time traffic visibility and a complex upgrade process. Azure's documentation lacks clarity and could benefit from better community and support resources. Users find its pricing plans less accessible for small to mid-sized companies.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Imperva supports a wide variety of deployment options, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, making it versatile. Customer service is well-regarded, though sometimes slow. Azure WAF is primarily cloud-focused and has seamless integration into Azure environments. Customer service is reliable but not always prompt or localized.

Pricing and ROI: Imperva Web Application Firewall is considered costly with complex pricing models. It provides high ROI for critical sectors but can be a barrier due to its high cost. Azure Web Application Firewall's flexible and affordable pricing appeals to those controlling costs in cloud environments. Azure's scalability and flexible pricing are highlighted, while Imperva's high ROI isn't overlooked despite its premium cost.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,825 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Azure Web Application Firewall

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

12th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Microsoft Security Suite (22nd)

Imperva Web Application Fir...

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

7th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 4.2%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Imperva Web Application Firewall is 5.6%, down from 6.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

Featured Reviews

Mano Senaratne

Management Consultant at a consultancy with 201-500 employees

Comprehensive suite simplifies configuration while frequent updates require management

Mainly, it comes with the complete suite of Microsoft services. I can use it in conjunction with the best options and other features that come with it. Configuration is much easier than using different platforms. For example, if I have hosted the application in AWS and am using the Application Firewall from Azure, there are certain additional steps to follow when configuring them. With Microsoft, everything is within a single suite, making it easier to configure and plan. Azure continually upgrades platforms and sends us messages to upgrade to the next version, simplifying the process. Later, it's much easier if I want to upgrade the software platform, scale it, or move it to a different application host as the whole suite comes together. The return on investment is good. If I am doing applications for clients, I can invoice them for better costs. Most applications that I run and use have a better return on investment.

Read full review

Mitesh D Patel

Senior Technical Consultant- Cyber Security at Ivalue Infosolution

Effectively defends against threats like cross-site scripting (XSS), SQL injection, and others

It does bring value. For example, consider a BFSI customer. Their application is critical and represents their brand. Without a WAF, an attack could take their application down, harming their reputation. It leads to hampering the customer's workflow. With an Imperva WAF, they protect against attacks like DDoS or SQL injection, ensuring their application remains available and customers are happy. That's the main benefit for both the customer and the organization. The impact depends on the customer's use case. If their business primarily operates online, a CDN is beneficial for traffic optimization. Moreover, the integration options depend on the specific use case of our customers. Generally, integration capabilities are good with SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) parts.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is almost impossible to access these assets from outside, requiring a very skilled attacker to obtain asset tokens of a customer using Azure."

"It has been a stable product in my experience."

"Configuration is much easier than using different platforms."

"I can only strongly recommend using the Azure Web Application Firewall."

"The integration it has with GitHub is great."

"The solution has good dashboards."

"The best features of Azure Web Application Firewall are that it provides security and protection from poorly designed web applications."

"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."

More Azure Web Application Firewall pros

"Imperva has a complete picture of how the applications are utilizing it. It is handy. DDoS is good. It has an internally managed database. It is very easy to integrate. We have integrated it with SIEM services."

"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."

"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."

"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."

"It is easy to use and has good security."

"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."

"The solution is stable."

"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall pros

Cons

"Upgrading the platform regularly is necessary for security, however, frequent updates every six months or year from Azure can be a maintenance overhead."

"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."

"Some Azure applications, like the web application firewall, require a certain level of SKU for hosting setup. The basic setup does not allow me to use the web application firewall and other additional services."

"From my point of view, there is no need for improvement."

"The documentation needs to be improved."

"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."

"The management can be improved."

"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."

More Azure Web Application Firewall cons

"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."

"Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved."

"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."

"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."

"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."

"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."

"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."

"The user interface could be better."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."

"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."

"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."

"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."

"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."

"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."

"Make sure you understand the way that Imperva charges. It's very affordable. However, I would like to see a package with the Virtual Patching included. You get to do patching separately."

"The tool is expensive."

"Everybody complains about the price of this solution."

"It is a very affordable solution."

"The price is high compared to other solutions like FortiWeb."

"There is a license for this solution and we purchase the license annually with no additional fees."

"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."

"Licensing can range from one to twenty thousand dollars annually. Additionally, some features, including software support, require an annual subscription as well."

More Imperva Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

12%

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Azure Web Application Firewall?

The integration it has with GitHub is great.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?

The pricing is okay at the moment. Sometimes, when opting for a higher SKU, it's not the WAF itself that's costly but the additional requirements. A higher SKU application hosting platform adds to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?

While using it, I identified certain areas where it would have been good to have additional features. Right now, I can't recall any specific instances. Seamless integration is good, yet having mult...

See all answers

Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?

My recommendation is Imperva.

See all answers

Is Citrix ADC (formerly Netscaler) the best ADC to use and if not why?

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.

See all answers

DDoS solutions: Any other solutions to consider aside from Radware DDoS Protection Service and F5 Silverline DDoS Protection?

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 Imperv...

See all answers

Comparisons

AWS WAF vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 31% of the time

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 11% of the time

Azure Front Door vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 6% of the time

Akamai App and API Protector vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Azure Web Application Firewall

Compared 4% of the time

More Azure Web Application Firewall Competitors

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 15% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 12% of the time

Azure Front Door vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 9% of the time

AWS WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 8% of the time

Radware Alteon vs Imperva Web Application Firewall

Compared 3% of the time

More Imperva Web Application Firewall Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Azure Web Application Firewall

July 2025

Download Azure Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

Imperva Web Application Firewall

June 2025

Download Imperva Web Application Firewall product report

Overview

Azure Web Application Firewall (WAF) provides centralized protection of your web applications from common exploits and vulnerabilities. Web applications are increasingly targeted by malicious attacks that exploit commonly known vulnerabilities. SQL injection and cross-site scripting are among the most common attacks.

To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.

Microsoft

Imperva Web Application Firewall is a versatile solution that protects web applications and databases from various attacks, including DDoS, cross-site scripting, and SQL injection attacks. It offers data security, availability, and access control and can be deployed on-premises or on the cloud.

The solution has good security against web attacks and offers advanced bot protection, API security, and mitigation features. Imperva WAF is easy to configure and deploy; it has good customer service and an excellent user interface.

Imperva

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

BlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens

Buyer's Guide

Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

June 2025

Free Report: Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.