We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Radware Alteon based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The solution is scalable."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"The solution can scale."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"Security is one of the most valuable features that I like. It is easy to use and easy to configure."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"The device blocks threats and allows legitimate users to work correctly."
"Radware has been characterized by being extremely robust. This gives us the confidence to offer our users a continuous service."
"With Alteon, the load-balancing options are practically unlimited. We haven't had any issues with offloading, decryption, putting in cookies, or any other load-balancing features. We can check URLs, etc., on the back end for load balancing instead of running a TCP check. We're also doing some certificate stuff on there. Alteon covers all of the standard load-balancing techniques, and we employ most of them daily."
"The solution has been very stable."
"The features that mitigate attacks are very valuable."
"The link load balancing is a great feature."
"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."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"There could be some limitations that from the converged infrastructure perspective: when you want to converge with everything and you want Imperva to get there easily because it's not a cloud component. For example, when you want to build servers and you're using OneView to manage your software-defined networks, implementing Imperva right away is not that simple. But if you're doing just a simple cloud infrastructure with servers in there, you're good to go. Also, we are not able, with Imperva, to block by signatures. Imperva by itself needs to be complemented with another service to do URL filtering."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"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 initial setup could be simplified. Every time you have to install the solution you have to get in touch with support or somebody that can to do that for you."
"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."
"It can be improved by combining the web application firewall (WAF) facility."
"Radware Alteon could improve the troubleshooting from the command line interface, they could do a better job making it easier."
"The GUI needs to be improved. Right now, the solution isn't so user-friendly."
"I would like this solution to have an integration tool that will convert configuration from other software, into readable values for this product during implementation."
"Support is very important because if we get good support, we'll be able to sell and supply more numbers."
"The solution could be more open to additional third-party add-ons being integrated into it."
"Support is an area that needs improvement."
"Performance could be improved."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 33 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. 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 Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Fastly, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Fortinet FortiADC. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. Radware Alteon 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.