We performed a comparison between FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup was easy since it was possible to get remote support for the product."
"The tool's HTTP traffic, website fixing, and blocking are fantastic. It is user-friendly with easy configuration."
"The platform's stability is good."
"We use it to secure VMs and applications. It protects against DDoS attacks. It's very user-friendly."
"The machine learning feature reduces the false positives."
"The machine learning on FortiWeb WAF is valuable."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall blocks attacks from application layers and provides protection."
"The fact that I can log into the platform and see everybody, see logs, authentication failure, and see everything on one platform, is the most valuable feature."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"The solution is stable."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a highly stable solution and is very mature."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"Imperva monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"There is room for improvement in the support. The response time could be faster. Plus, they ask for a lot of information. It is not easy to get support."
"We have encountered issues with webhooks and management of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's on-premise version."
"WAF needs more signatures on FortiWeb and updates the database continuously to protect against new attacks."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's signature database updates could be improved."
"It would be good if the solution integrated with other solutions, like SAP."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) needs to update its attack prevention database."
"The product is complicated to set up."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall needs to improve its performance."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"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."
"There could be some limitations that from the converged infrastructure perspective: when you want to converge with everything and you want Imperva to get there easily because it's not a cloud component. For example, when you want to build servers and you're using OneView to manage your software-defined networks, implementing Imperva right away is not that simple. But if you're doing just a simple cloud infrastructure with servers in there, you're good to go. Also, we are not able, with Imperva, to block by signatures. Imperva by itself needs to be complemented with another service to do URL filtering."
"Sometimes our web application firewall will slow down."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is very expensive."
More FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is ranked 16th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 13 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews. FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is rated 8.0, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) writes "Protects internal applications and prevents target attacks ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF and Azure Front Door, 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 FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (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.
