The tool helps us to meet security requirements.

I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel.

I would like the solution to improve its support response time.

I am working on the solution for two to three years.

I would rate the product's stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have more than eight to nine sites that are covered by the tool.

The solution's deployment gets completed in less than 15 minutes.

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. I discussed with the security teams and they consider the tool a state-of-the-art product.

It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms.

I have been using the solution for six years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable. We have 20 applications hosted on its on-premises version and around five applications on mobile infrastructure. A team of three administrators manages the operations.

The solution's technical support is good.

I have used F5 and Barracuda before. Both solutions are easy to use.

The solution's initial setup is easy and takes two or three days to complete.

We implemented the solution with the help of its reseller.

The solution is stable and easy to manage. I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for traffic inspection.

The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security.

I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support.

I have been working with the solution for three years.

I have never had any issues on stability.

The tool is scalable.

The solution's setup is straightforward.

The tool is expensive.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is very mature and covers everything for its use cases.

I am impressed with the product's automatic bot mechanism. It also gives us the control to create our own custom bot rules.

The tool needs to include artificial intelligence and machine learning. It also needs to improve profiling.

The tool is stable.

The product's setup is pretty easy.

The tool's pricing is good.

The solution is a reliable product. I would rate the tool an eight out of ten.

At my previous workplace in the banking sector, we used Imperva WAF for the monitoring of our internet banking traffic, and we also used Imperva's DAM for the database activity monitoring.

Our deployment of Imperva WAF was situated on-premises and it was in use throughout the whole organization, which included around 3,500 clients.

Imperva Web Application Firewall has improved security of my organization through enhanced visiblity as well protecting malicious IPs, applications and unknown users as well.

The WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network.

Imperva's product is very good, but when it comes to procuring the software in my country it can be somewhat expensive. I don't recall the exact amount, but in comparison with other countries it is a huge investment.

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.

Although the vendor support from Imperva is not bad, getting a response from them can be a lengthy process at times.

I have used Imperva WAF for about three years.

The stability is mature enough, in my experience. In fact, I would give it a 5/5 for stability.

Scalability-wise, there is one issue we encountered that I want to mention. At some point, Imperva, moved their account takeover prevention features from the on-premises edition to the cloud-based edition, and we discovered that this step would take yet another integration, seeing that we were using Imperva on-premises. These account takeover prevention features, however, were already part of our subscription, but since the features moved to the cloud, we missed out on them. So, in this sense, I would say the scalability strategy isn't as solid as it should be, and for this reason I would rate the scalability a 3.5/5.

On the other hand, when it comes to how many users we were able to scale up to, we actually had the whole organization using it, including around 3,500 clients in total.

The support from the vendor side could be improved because their response times weren't great and the process of obtaining the proper support was a long process sometimes. That said, the support itself was not bad.

The setup was actually quite an advanced process. It was a good experience, but all in all it took about one year to get everything fully set up, when you take all the fine-tuning activities and such into account.

We deployed the Imperva WAF with the help of organizations in South Africa who acted as consultants and implementation partners for Imperva. Our experience with them was good, and the full implementation required two professionals from the consultant's side and about five people from our own organization. The vendor itself was not part of the implementation process.

The pricing is somewhat expensive. It is actually a huge investment when compared to other countries.

Not only that, but Imperva went on to separate the WAF and DAM management gateways, making it so that each would have to be managed and licensed separately, incurring the cost of additional investments.

On a related note, there was another licensing issue we encountered where we had a subscription for account takeover prevention features, but these features had been moved by Imperva from the on-premises instance to the cloud. Since we had not moved to the cloud at that point, we did not have access to these features anymore.

I can highly recommend Imperva WAF for financial institutions. It's a good solution and I think it's important for financial institutions, particularly those who conduct online banking, to make use of a solid WAF such as this.

I would rate Imperva WAF a nine out of ten.