We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, F5 Advanced WAF seems to be the marginally superior solution. Our reviewers find that Imperva Web Application Firewall‘s cost makes it prohibitive for some organizations to afford.
"F5 Advanced WAF secures our connectivity and combines both the main functions of WAF (balancing and web application security)."
"Customers find the load balancer feature as the most valuable."
"The solution uses AI to protect against botnet attacks."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its grand unity of the implementation, where you have the freedom to configure based on how it affects your use case or your organization. With the default setting of implicit deny, you can gradually start defining and deploying the tool to align with your environment, whether it is outdated, recent, or futuristic. This allows you to customize the solution to protect you from threat actors. You have the ability to define what the advanced threat act should do - whether it should alert, deny, or both - and it will deliver based on your configuration. Unlike other online solutions, F5 Advanced WAF provides flexibility to deliver to your unique environment the way you want."
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"Provides good protection from attacks."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the balancer and you can change policies very easily."
"It's scalable and very easy to manage."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network."
"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 features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"The solution is scalable."
"It has fewer false positives"
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP."
"The delay times on firmware patches and software updates could be better and improved."
"We get false positives sometimes."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"The solution should include protection against web page attacks like what is available in FortiWeb."
"It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by providing better features, such as improved prevention of zero-day attacks. Additionally, it should include a VR meta-analysis."
"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."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 31 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 21 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.4, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Simple to maintain, easy to configure, and easy to scale". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, NGINX App Protect and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Imperva DDoS. See our F5 Advanced 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.
