Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs Radware Kubernetes WAF comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Imperva Web Application Fir...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Radware Kubernetes WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
25th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Imperva Web Application Firewall is 5.8%, down from 6.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Radware Kubernetes WAF is 0.2%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Mitesh D Patel - PeerSpot reviewer
Effectively defends against threats like cross-site scripting (XSS), SQL injection, and others
It does bring value. For example, consider a BFSI customer. Their application is critical and represents their brand. Without a WAF, an attack could take their application down, harming their reputation. It leads to hampering the customer's workflow. With an Imperva WAF, they protect against attacks like DDoS or SQL injection, ensuring their application remains available and customers are happy. That's the main benefit for both the customer and the organization. The impact depends on the customer's use case. If their business primarily operates online, a CDN is beneficial for traffic optimization. Moreover, the integration options depend on the specific use case of our customers. Generally, integration capabilities are good with SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) parts.
HI
Excellent support and effective threat monitoring streamline network protection
Radware Kubernetes WAF could improve by spending more time with Red Hat before deploying the tool to ensure we understand its use better before integrating it into our network. Spending more time with Red Hat could have made the process more seamless. Improving Radware Kubernetes WAF involves spending more time with Red Hat before we actually deploy the product into our networks. Offering better training beforehand would also help. I would prefer to see better training or documentation for Radware Kubernetes WAF; more time spent with us before deployment would help us get more hands-on with it, which is essentially training.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"Imperva is a Gartner leader, so its scalability, performance, and features are excellent."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"It works right out of the box once you integrate the application."
"We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"I would give Radware Kubernetes WAF a rating of 10 out of 10."
"The quality of Red Hat's support is the best part of working with them; their support is amazing."
 

Cons

"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"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 would be helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"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."
"There is nothing specific where the application firewall is falling short."
"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."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"If Radware provides a separate web service like those offered by vendors such as F5 and Imperva, that would be better."
"Radware Kubernetes WAF could improve by spending more time with Red Hat before deploying the tool to ensure we understand its use better before integrating it into our network."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is an issue."
"There are some licenses that you have to buy to use some features. Its price could be better. Price is always important because, at the end of the day, customers have a budget. If you can meet the budget, you can sell, and if you don't, you cannot sell."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is expensive."
"The cost of this solution depends on the platform."
"Imperva’s pricing is a bit higher in the market since it offers a full-blown WAF."
"We sell three-year licenses for Imperva Web Application Firewall to our customers. The price is a little expensive."
"There are a couple of different licensing models."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall's pricing is expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Is Citrix ADC (formerly Netscaler) the best ADC to use and if not why?
For ADC, any ADC can do a good job. But in case if you want to add WAF functionality to the same ADC hardware you have to look for other ADC's like F5, Imperva, Radware, Fortinet, etc.
DDoS solutions: Any other solutions to consider aside from Radware DDoS Protection Service and F5 Silverline DDoS Protection?
You can have a look to Imperva Cloud WAF, the anti-DDoS mitigation is under 1s and works very well. I observed a lot of DDoS attacks that were well managed (even not seen by the customer) by Imperv...
What needs improvement with Radware Kubernetes WAF?
If Radware provides a separate web service like those offered by vendors such as F5 and Imperva, that would be better.
What is your primary use case for Radware Kubernetes WAF?
We use Radware Kubernetes WAF ( /products/radware-kubernetes-waf-reviews ) to protect our web applications from web-based attacks like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. It provides an integra...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BlueCross BlueShield, eHarmony, EMF Broadcasting, GE Healthcare, Metro Bank, The Motley Fool, Siemens
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.