We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall and SonicWall 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."One good thing about Imperva Web Application Firewall is it can be on the cloud and also it can be on-premise."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"It has fewer false positives"
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"The solution can scale."
"Capture ATP is a good additional feature in the latest version."
"The solution offers better data protection than competitors."
"We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"The signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"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."
"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."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"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."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."
"We have a lot of unknown errors popping up in the latest version."
"We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More SonicWall Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is ranked 25th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is rated 9.0. 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 SonicWall Web Application Firewall writes "A stable and durable solution that can be used for security and tunneling". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas SonicWall Web Application Firewall is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall vs. SonicWall 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.
