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.
"The initial setup was was easy to install."
"Identification, ease of use, and ease of modifying it to most of our needs are valuable."
"The web application firewall itself is most valuable. It provides positive security and negative security. In negative security, it blocks a task such as cross-site scripting, code injection, etc. In positive security, it lets you specify and enforce things, such as the parameters allowed in username and password fields and the number of characters allowed in a field."
"With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform."
"This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most."
"This solution is an enterprise-class firewall that provides both load-balancing and security."
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"The pricing could be more flexible."
"Most customers encounter stability issues with the product's Big-IP logs."
"I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF."
"We usually use a third-party tool for logging and reporting. It would be nice if we could do that right on this solution. They have one, but it's not very stable. Logging and reporting effectively would be a big enhancement."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"I would like to see additional controls."
"One area for improvement in the product is its SSO integration, which posed challenges and required significant effort to resolve."
"The solution is tedious. It takes a lot of discrete settings so one needs to get detailed and granular when they use the solution. It takes you a whole lot of energy and concentration to configure. It needs to be much more straight-forward, like other web solutions."
"The initial setup could be simplified. Every time you have to install the solution you have to get in touch with support or somebody that can to do that for you."
"The user interface could be better."
"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 solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 53 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 45 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, 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 "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. 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.
