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."The most valuable feature is customization."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) improves the resilience and quality of the application itself, the speed and the user experience for the application. The data that the users need from the application is actually acquired faster. So, it provides faster data acquisition."
"The feature I find the most valuable is the support infrastructure."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"NetFlow balancing and traffic balancing are good features."
"I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing."
"Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"It has fewer false positives"
"One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Very scalable and very stable firewall for web applications, with a good interface in its cloud version. Mitigation is its most valuable feature. The technical support for this product is also good."
"My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey."
"There are not very many areas for improvement, but the price is high."
"Its GUI could be a bit better. Other than that, it's already pretty good. We don't use it in a high-performance environment. So, we don't really care so much about too many features."
"A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function."
"The initial setup can be complex - it's quite flexible in terms of configuration, but the person configuring it needs to understand the application side, the network side, and the server."
"Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking."
"I'm not very sure about the security with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have our own private data center, but we are going to migrate our private data center into the Azure cloud environment. Security will then be a major concern when we migrate our own whole infrastructure to the public cloud."
"It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"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 could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"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."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
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 44 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 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 "Great support, helpful documentation, and is user-friendly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Simple to maintain, easy to configure, and easy to scale". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC and HAProxy, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva DDoS and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning. 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.
