"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
"DDoS protection and WAF are the most valuable features. It is easy to deploy a service. It is easy and quick to deploy to a new website."
"It is an effective threat mitigation tool."
"The most valuable features for us are the DDoS and Bot."
"There are quite a few useful Imperva Incapsula features. For example, one of them is the reports. The graphics are very good and it's easy to configure. The whole process is very fast and reliable too. They have good tech support as well."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is that it is easy to configure."
"Its unique interface for managing security performance and ease of use are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The setup was straightforward."
"The solution has an up-to-date data repository to deal with external threats."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"It would be beneficial to include vulnerability management in the solution, similar to what they have for their on-premise solution."
"The weakest point of Imperva is their first level of support, which should be improved. They should also improve the access and security logs viewing directly on the portal. I would like to see better access and security logs through the portal and not only through a SIM solution. Currently, if you want to explore your access and security logs from Imperva, you need a SIM tool or a SIM infrastructure on your side to do it. You can't do it manually or directly through the portal, which is a big problem for us. I had a call yesterday with Imperva for the roadmap, and I just told them this. They agreed that this is an improvement point from their side."
"Its price could be improved. It is quite expensive. It will be good if we could export the configuration. Currently, to control the configuration, we need to go to each website, which is not very convenient."
"The log analytics interface within Incapsula isn't really good. For example, if you have to get all logs from there, it's a very cumbersome process."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
"Users would benefit from better documentation. There is official documentation, but sometimes we need more detail. We have some use cases that are not so run of the mill. It would be great if there was a knowledge base that we could go to for more answers."
"Certificate management could be improved."
"A limited tool if you're looking to customize."
"It would be an improvement if the management dashboards were not reliant upon Java."
"Sometimes scanning slows down the endpoints."
"I'm not convinced that it's necessary the best solution going forward in the future."
Imperva Incapsula is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 13 reviews while Symantec Web Application Firewall is ranked 20th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Imperva Incapsula is rated 8.6, while Symantec Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Imperva Incapsula writes "There is not too much to know but that it is one of the best products of this type that you can get". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Web Application Firewall writes "An excellent up-to-date data repository handling external threats successfully". Imperva Incapsula is most compared with Cloudflare, Imperva Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF, Akamai and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, whereas Symantec Web Application Firewall is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb and NGINX App Protect. See our Imperva Incapsula vs. Symantec 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.
