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

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 4.4% mindshare in WAF, compared to Imperva’s 5.8% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Imperva users who would recommend it.
Azure Web Application Firewall
Read 13 Azure Web Application Firewall reviews
  • 3,216 Views
  • 2,177 Comparison Views
92% 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 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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
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 856,873 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
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (20th)
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 Web Application Firewall is 4.4%, down from 4.7% 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

Mano Senaratne - PeerSpot reviewer
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 - 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

"The solution has good dashboards."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Web Application Firewall is its ability to filter requests and block false positives by using custom rules and the OWASP rule set."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"I can only strongly recommend using the Azure Web Application Firewall."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
More Azure Web Application Firewall pros
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"It works right out of the box once you integrate the application."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"Its inline transferring mode is the most valuable because it is 100% transparent. When you change the IP, there is no change on the network side. If you can't and want to try to reach an IP, you can reach the server IP. There are many other advanced security features in it. The smallest appliances of Imperva can handle the highest traffic at a customer site. For example, a smaller appliance from Imperva can provide you the same security as an F5 product."
"We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall pros
 

Cons

"The management can be improved."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The knowledge base could 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
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"The product's customization capabilities are a bit problematic, requiring support cases for backend modifications."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"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."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"The solution's pricing is an issue."
"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."
"There are a couple of different licensing models."
"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."
"It is very costly, but the return on investment is very high. Its cost was around $70,000, and we got it back in just six months."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall's pricing is expensive."
"The price of this solution is a little bit high compared to competitors."
"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
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
856,873 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
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

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 Logo
AWS WAF vs Azure Web Application Firewall
Compared 34% of the time
Fortinet FortiWeb vs Azure Web Application Firewall Logo
Fortinet FortiWeb vs Azure Web Application Firewall
Compared 12% of the time
Azure Front Door vs Azure Web Application Firewall Logo
Azure Front Door vs Azure Web Application Firewall
Compared 6% of the time
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Azure Web Application Firewall Logo
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Azure Web Application Firewall
Compared 4% of the time
Azure Bastion vs Azure Web Application Firewall Logo
Azure Bastion 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 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
Azure Front Door vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
Azure Front Door vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 10% of the time
AWS WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
AWS WAF vs Imperva Web Application Firewall
Compared 8% of the time
F5 Distributed Cloud Services vs Imperva Web Application Firewall Logo
F5 Distributed Cloud Services 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
June 2025
Azure Web Application Firewall reportDownload Azure Web Application Firewall product report
Buyer's Guide
Imperva Web Application Firewall
June 2025
Imperva Web Application Firewall reportDownload 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
856,873 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.