Imperva vs Gcore
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Imperva and Gcore.
Quick Verdict
3.2/5
Imperva
0 reviews
3.8/5
Gcore
0 reviews
Gcore is rated higher (3.8 vs 3.2). Imperva provides enterprise WAF, DDoS protection, bot management, and API security, now part of Thales. 13 Tbps DDoS scrubbing capacity across 61 data centers. Quote-based pricing. Gcore is a Luxembourg-based CDN and cloud provider with 210+ PoPs and strong coverage in CIS, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Africa.
Imperva Enterprise WAF and DDoS protection | Gcore Global CDN with 210+ PoPs, strong CIS and emerging-market coverage | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Rating | 3.2 (0 reviews) | 3.8 (0 reviews)✓ |
| Pricing model | paid | pay-as-you-go |
| Starting price | Free tier available | Free tier available |
| Best for | Enterprises in financial services, large e-commerce, and regulated industries needing proven WAF, bot management, and volumetric DDoS protection with contractual SLAs | Applications whose audience spans CIS, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Africa, and EU buyers wanting a Luxembourg legal base with predictable per-GB CDN pricing and a real free tier. |
| Features | ||
| IPv6 | ✓ | |
| DDoS protection | ||
| Automated backups | ||
| Snapshots | ||
| Managed option | ||
| Bare metal | ||
| GPU available | ||
| S3-compatible | ||
| Hourly billing | ||
| Free tier | ✓ | |
| Tags | ||
| Tags | ddos protectionteam featuressso | free tierddos protectioneu datacenterus datacenterapac datacenterapi access |
| Visit Imperva → | Visit Gcore → | |
Imperva
Pros
- + 13 Tbps scrubbing capacity across 61 DDoS-resilient data centers with full security stack at every PoP
- + Contractual 3-second mitigation SLA for Layer 3 and 4 DDoS attacks
- + Deep portfolio: WAF, bot management, API security, client-side protection, and data-security analytics
- + Thales ownership and a 20+ year track record suit regulated industries and long procurement cycles
- + 260+ built-in integrations with SIEM, Splunk, CMDB, and SOAR tooling
Cons
- - Quote-only pricing with no free tier or public price list
- - Configuration complexity requires real security-engineering effort to tune
- - Console sprawl and legacy/current branding overlap after years of product accretion
- - Module-by-module packaging makes full-platform cost hard to predict
- - Overkill for small deployments that a CDN-tier WAF would cover
Gcore
Pros
- + First 1 TB of CDN traffic free every month on the full 210+ PoP network, no card required
- + Published progressive per-GB pricing; overage rates cut ~66% versus the old Free tier
- + Strong CIS, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Africa coverage where US rivals are thinner
- + Free SSL and basic L3/L4 DDoS included in every plan, not sold as add-ons
- + Cash-flow-positive company with reported ~$140M revenue — less pricing-risk than burn-rate challengers
Cons
- - Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party integrations than Cloudflare
- - WAF is a separate product with a basic self-serve tier; bot and API security are Enterprise
- - Stale pricing pages and inconsistent SLA figures (99% vs 99.9%) across channels
- - Brand less known in Western markets; more support-ticket-driven buying
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new hosting and infrastructure providers, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.