Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azure Front Door vs Imperva Web Application Firewall comparison

Microsoft and Imperva are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. Microsoft is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.9, while Imperva is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.8. Microsoft holds a 4.5% mindshare in WAF, compared to Imperva’s 5.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Imperva users who would recommend it.
Azure Front Door
Read 15 Azure Front Door reviews
  • 3,307 Views
  • 1,669 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
Imperva Web Application Fir...
Read 52 Imperva Web Application Firewall reviews
  • 4,789 Views
  • 2,294 Comparison Views
97% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Imperva Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door compete in the web security and content delivery network category. Imperva seems to have the upper hand with its comprehensive security features despite challenges in UI, while Azure Front Door is favored for global application deployment and user-friendly configuration but faces some limitations in load balancing.

Features: Imperva Web Application Firewall offers threat radar for detecting potential attacks, seamless integration with existing systems, and robust DDoS protection. On the other hand, Azure Front Door provides extensive CDN capabilities, effective bot protection to prevent automated cyber threats, and efficient load balancing, making it particularly appealing for managing traffic across multiple regions.

Room for Improvement: Users of Imperva indicate that policy management could be streamlined, the complex UI can be confusing, and there are concerns about false positives. Azure Front Door users suggest enhancing global load balancing capabilities and providing better clarification of product functionalities, as some features may not be intuitive for all users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Imperva offers versatility with both on-premises and cloud deployments but some users find the complexity challenging. Its technical support receives praise, though delays occur at times. Azure Front Door is primarily cloud-based, making its deployment relatively straightforward, though it might require additional localized support due to certain technical issues.

Pricing and ROI: Imperva is perceived as expensive but offers substantial ROI, particularly in sectors like banking. Its hybrid environment support allows for variable pricing based on selected protection levels. Azure Front Door provides a pay-as-you-go model with flexible tiers, which can become costly if premium features are selected, but users value the competitive balance of features and pricing.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Azure Front Door vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall Report (Updated: June 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Azure Front Door vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall
June 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 858,649 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 Front Door
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
13th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
CDN (2nd), Microsoft Security Suite (18th)
Imperva Web Application Fir...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Front Door is 4.5%, down from 5.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Imperva Web Application Firewall is 5.8%, down from 6.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

SayedAbdelrhman - PeerSpot reviewer
Provide bot protection and has proficient documentation
During our discussion with the internal Microsoft team about assessing our environment, they confirmed that we have sufficient security measures, especially regarding edge protection. Internally, we believe we are now certified. In the future, we could consider adding layer four protection from the firewall. Front Door combines CDN and WAF protection, so further enhancing its features could benefit both the customer and us. We monitor the number of users attempting to access our IP or DNS servers. When designing the system, we initially needed to ensure our environment was protected with a WAF. However, WAF is currently too costly for us, so we created private links and connected them to Front Door. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Read full review
Mitesh D Patel - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"I find the technical support excellent, and I rate it a ten."
"The most valuable feature is that I can have CDN and load-balancing capabilities in a single service instead of managing two separate tools."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"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."
"The tool is easy to use for beginners."
"The solution is good."
"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."
More Azure Front Door pros
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"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."
"It is easy to use and has good security."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall pros
 

Cons

"The product needs to improve its latency."
"The tool should improve its cost."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"I dislike the URL set parameters."
"There could be improvements regarding its pricing for large-scale projects."
"In the tool, there needs to be a good amount of monitoring in the area of health probes to capture in front of what is happening."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"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."
More Azure Front Door cons
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"The product's customization capabilities are a bit problematic, requiring support cases for backend modifications."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is a bit expensive."
"The product is expensive."
"The pricing of the solution is good."
"It is on a pay-as-you-go basis."
"The transition to the premium tier has led to increased costs, making it more expensive than the classic tier."
"Considering the standard licensing of the tool, even though we have not checked the billing as of now, it might not be very costly."
"It is a very affordable solution."
"Licensing can range from one to twenty thousand dollars annually. Additionally, some features, including software support, require an annual subscription as well."
"The price of this solution is a little bit high compared to competitors."
"It's an excellent product, but it can be very costly."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is expensive."
"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."
"The cost of this solution depends on the platform."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice
report
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
858,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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...
See all answers
What do you like most about Azure Front Door?
Rules Engine is a valuable feature.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Front Door?
I am not sure about the pricing but believe Azure Front Door might require a higher cost due to its entry point nature.
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

Cloudflare vs Azure Front Door Logo
Cloudflare vs Azure Front Door
Compared 18% of the time
Amazon CloudFront vs Azure Front Door Logo
Amazon CloudFront vs Azure Front Door
Compared 16% of the time
Akamai vs Azure Front Door Logo
Akamai vs Azure Front Door
Compared 12% of the time
AWS Global Accelerator vs Azure Front Door Logo
AWS Global Accelerator vs Azure Front Door
Compared 11% of the time
Azure Firewall vs Azure Front Door Logo
Azure Firewall vs Azure Front Door
Compared 4% of the time
More Azure Front Door Competitors
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 15% of the time
F5 Advanced WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
F5 Advanced WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 12% of the time
AWS WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
AWS WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 8% of the time
Fortinet FortiWeb vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
Fortinet FortiWeb vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 7% of the time
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 6% of the time
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Azure Front Door
June 2025
Azure Front Door reportDownload Azure Front Door product report
Buyer's Guide
Imperva Web Application Firewall
June 2025
Imperva Web Application Firewall reportDownload Imperva Web Application Firewall product report
 

Also Known As

Azure Front-Door
No data available
 

Overview

Azure Front Door is employed for securing external traffic, global load balancing, integrating web application firewalls, enabling disaster recovery, and enhancing application accessibility.

Organizations leverage Azure Front Door to support data publishing, act as a CDN, and ensure low latency for global users. Clients use it to protect numerous internet-accessible applications, integrate with DNS, and implement custom routes. Favored for caching web content and securely, efficiently distributing traffic to backend services, Azure Front Door offers SSL offloading, traffic inspection, and global scalability. Users value its affordability, ease of implementation, and web application firewall. Azure Front Door provides rich security features, traffic management, and URL rewriting. Load-balancing capabilities enhance performance with additional content security policies and bot protection. Integrations, including with GitOps, along with combined CDN and load-balancing, are also highlighted.

What are the most important features?
  • SSL Offloading: Reduces the burden on backend services
  • Traffic Inspection: Enhances security by inspecting incoming traffic
  • Global Scalability: Ensures performance for users worldwide
  • Web Application Firewall: Provides in-depth security features
  • Load Balancing: Distributes traffic to improve performance
  • URL Rewriting: Customizes URL paths for better navigation
  • Bot Protection: Shields applications from automated threats
  • Integrations: Supports technologies like GitOps
  • Combined CDN and Load-Balancing: Streamlines content delivery and traffic management
What are the benefits or ROI of using this service?
  • Affordability: Provides cost-effective solutions for web traffic management
  • Ease of Implementation: Streamlines setup processes for quick deployment
  • Enhanced Security: Offers robust protection for web applications
  • Improved Performance: Optimizes traffic distribution and latency
  • Scalability: Supports growing application demands with global reach

Azure Front Door finds usage across multiple industries due to its versatile applications. E-commerce companies benefit from improved global accessibility and speed, while financial institutions leverage its security features for protecting sensitive data. Media and entertainment sectors use its CDN capabilities for seamless content delivery, and healthcare providers rely on its compliance and protection standards for patient data security.

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 Front Door vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall
June 2025
Free Report: Azure Front Door vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Front Door vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
858,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Azure Front Door 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.