We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."It is a highly scalable solution with a quick turnaround time for deployment and running of the software across any IT system."
"The tool helps us to block IPs and applications."
"It offers high performance and improved productivity for users."
"It is a very scalable and stable solution."
"The solution offers continuous security monitoring and alerting, which can help organizations detect and respond to security incidents in real time."
"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."
"User attitude reviews help us keep all online users compliant with company regulations and policies."
"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."
"The solution is scalable."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"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."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"The solution can scale."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"I do not know if it is already there, but I would like to have complete visibility between the posture management and firewall as a service."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"In terms of features, I do not have any negatives. Their integration is extremely quick. It is better than others I have been involved with in the past. Their pricing model, however, can be better."
"The creation of security profiles for each application takes a lot of time."
"The trial version should be extended further so that QA test engineers can actually test the utilities in a real sense and can provide the maximum amount of feedback for enhancements."
"It doesn't detect user activity like some of its competitors. It's not a vulnerability, but it's a legitimate activity that it doesn't detect. It only detects vulnerabilities or misconfigurations."
"A feature we'd like to see in the future is something that could protect against other attack vectors, with a focus on application protection."
"Deeper and more transparent integration between Cloud Application Security and analysis monitoring tools could be very valuable - although the solution currently offers integrations with third-party security tools."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"The user interface could be better."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 30 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is rated 9.0, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard WAF writes "Automation capabilities also help streamline security processes and smooths down API integration processes and detects API availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Check Point CloudGuard WAF is most compared with SonarQube and Checkmarx One, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door.
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.
