"The customizable features are good."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"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."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Very scalable and very stable firewall for web applications, with a good interface in its cloud version. Mitigation is its most valuable feature. The technical support for this product is also good."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"The solution can scale."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"AWS WAF could improve by making the overall management easier. Many people that have started working with AWS WAF do not have an easy time. They should make it easy to use."
"The setup is complicated."
"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"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."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"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."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 12 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 7th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 17 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.6, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Does what it is supposed to do, probably not in the best way and not in the best UI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Simple to maintain, easy to configure, and easy to scale". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Azure Web Application Firewall, Azure Front Door and Akamai Kona Site Defender, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva DDoS, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai Kona Site Defender. 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.
