🆚 DDoS Guard vs. Imperva WAF
Imperva WAF is slightly more popular than DDoS Guard.- Imperva WAF is more popular in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
DDoS Guard is more popular in Russia, Belarus, and Belize.
Type
About
DDoS-Guard is a Russian bot and DDoS mitigation service that filters traffic through a geo-distributed scrubbing network of 4 Tbps capacity.
It provides L3-L7 DDoS protection, bot filtering, classic reverse proxy website protection or proxying without DNS A-record changes, network protection through encrypted tunnels, and Twin Tunnel technology that maintains redundant tunnel connections and switches automatically between them during network failures.
Imperva Cloud WAF protects websites from automated vulnerability scans, Layer 7 DDoS attacks, and malicious bots.
It also provides advanced bot protection using device fingerprinting with over 200 attributes, threat intelligence feeds, managed rules, and attack analytics to block or control suspicious traffic.
Headquarters
Pricing
Categories
Popularity
Determined by the number of sites using each technology.
Market share
Popularity by country
Determined by the number of sites detected from each country.
Awards
- 🥇 Most popular in Russia in the Bot Mitigation category.
- 🥇 Most popular in Belarus in the Bot Mitigation category.
- 🥇 Most popular in Belize in the Bot Mitigation category.
- 🥇 Most popular in Kazakhstan in the Bot Mitigation category.
- ⭐ 4th most popular in the United Arab Emirates in the Bot Mitigation category.
- 🥇 Most popular in New Zealand in the WAF category.
- 🥇 Most popular in Thailand in the WAF category.
- 🥇 Most popular in Mexico in the WAF category.
- 🥈 Second most popular in Japan in the WAF category.
- 🥈 Second most popular in New Zealand in the Bot Mitigation category.
Popularity by domain category
Determined by the number of sites in each category.
Top sites
Top-ranked sites that use these technologies.
Compare alternatives
Technologies with similar characteristics.
🗃️ About This Data
- We evaluate the popularity of technologies based on the number of websites where we detect their usage.
- Technologies without a detectable web footprint, and those we do not track, are not reflected in the calculated market share.
- This report is based on the analysis of 4,046,631 websites.
- Statistics were last calculated on .
- For more details, see our methodology and disclaimer.