We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and Rapid7 AppSpider based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon, Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"The solution can scale."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"What I like most about AppSpider is that it's easy to use and its automated scan gives me all the details I need to know when it comes to vulnerabilities and their solutions."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"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."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"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."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"The performance of the solution could improve. When I compare the speed it is slower than others on the market. There are some tricks we use to help speed up the solution."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"Integration could be better."
"The product needs to be able to scale for large companies, like ours. We have millions of IP addresses that need to be scanned, and the scalability is not great."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 44 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 13 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Invicti.
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.