We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."NetFlow balancing and traffic balancing are good features."
"Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"It is a fast and available solution."
"It is stable."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"It improves the overall performance of applications by decreasing the burden on servers associated with managing and maintaining applications and network sessions, as well as by performing application-specific tasks."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"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."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"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 solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is scalable."
"Certificate management needs improvement. I would like automated deployment of new certificates without manual intervention to be in the next release of this product."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization. It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"A more intuitive interface would be helpful."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"I'd like the option to pick your bot protection."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"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."
"The signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 45 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall report.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
