We performed a comparison between Akamai Kona Site Defender and Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
"I like that the charges are all based on usage and labor costs. For the time that we spend onboarding almost 252020 FQDN, Akamai charges us only for the traffic usage, but it's only charging us for the labor costs for onboarding."
"The solution can scale extremely well."
"The most valuable feature is the custom rules feature. This is because many of our customers require a lot of custom rules. Because it's a very customized project for our customers, I think they have the best of everything already."
"The features are powerful and better than F5."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"The solution can scale."
"The solution is stable."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"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 features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"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."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"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 solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Web application attacks deny services and steal sensitive data. Imperva Web Application Firewall (WAF) analyzes and inspects requests coming in to applications and stops these attacks.
Protect your applications in the cloud and on-premises with the same set of security policies and management capabilities. Safely migrate apps while maintaining full protection.
Deploy Imperva WAF on-premises, in AWS and Azure, or as a cloud service itself. Easily meet the specific security and service level requirements of individual applications.
Imperva WAF protects against the most critical web application security risks: SQL injection, cross-site scripting, illegal resource access, remote file inclusion, and other OWASP Top 10 and Automated Top 20 threats. Imperva security researchers continually monitor the threat landscape and update Imperva WAF with the latest threat data.
Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 4 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.0, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona Site Defender writes "Great technical support, scales extremely well, and is very stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Simple to maintain, easy to configure, and easy to scale". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with AWS WAF, Akamai Prolexic Routed, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Akamai Web Application Protector and Azure DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Web Application Firewall. See our Akamai Kona Site Defender 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.