Index › IT › Network and edge › WAF › Sucuri WAF vs Imperva Cloud WAF
Web application firewalls · November 2026 Edition

Sucuri WAF vs Imperva Cloud WAF

Zero of fourteen models named Sucuri WAF first on the direct prompt; zero named Imperva Cloud WAF. Sucuri WAF was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Imperva Cloud WAF by fourteen and Sucuri WAF carries 17 labels and Imperva Cloud WAF 46, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Sucuri WAF

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

Imperva Cloud WAF

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate12%20%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#4A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels1746A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Sucuri WAF reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cloudflare WAF was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cloudflare WAF vs Sucuri WAF · Cloudflare WAF vs Imperva Cloud WAF · Sucuri WAF vs AWS WAF

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the web application firewalls page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Sucuri WAFFirst choices, of fourteen modelsImperva Cloud WAF
Direct001 against Sucuri WAF · 3 against Imperva Cloud WAF
Paraphrase00
Comparative01
Budget-constrained202 against Imperva Cloud WAF
Scale-constrained01
Negative001 against Sucuri WAF · 4 against Imperva Cloud WAF
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Sucuri WAF and Imperva Cloud WAF were named in the same answer thirty-three times, of the 72 answers naming Sucuri WAF and the 145 naming Imperva Cloud WAF. In those answers Imperva Cloud WAF took the first choice two times and Sucuri WAF one.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Sucuri WAF and Imperva Cloud WAF stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Sucuri WAF Imperva Cloud WAF first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Sucuri WAF on the left and Imperva Cloud WAF on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Sucuri WAF and Imperva Cloud WAF stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Qwen 3.7 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure Front Door, F5 Distributed Cloud WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
Kimi K2Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
GLM 4.7 FlashXCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
MiniMax M2.5Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Google Cloud Armor, Imperva Cloud WAF, Radware Cloud WAF Service

Neither was named

10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Barracuda WAF alternatives: Cloudflare WAF, Microsoft Azure WAF
GPT-5.4 miniCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, F5 Distributed Cloud WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF, Imperva App Protect
Perplexity SonarCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Grok 4.20Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure WAF, Barracuda WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Mistral SmallCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva SecureSphere
DeepSeek V4 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, Imperva Application Security
Llama 4 MaverickCloudflare WAF
GPT-6 LunaCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF
Muse Glimmer 30BCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda Web Application Firewall

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Sucuri WAF leads by two points.
Sucuri WAF2%#2 of 9
Imperva Cloud WAF0%#9 of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Sucuri WAF leads by two points.
Sucuri WAF4%#2 of 12
Imperva Cloud WAF2%#4 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Imperva Cloud WAF leads at enterprise.
Imperva Cloud WAF19%#2 of 9
Sucuri WAF0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Sucuri WAF

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“ModSecurity (open-source, used in many like OWASP CRS, AWS WAF, Sucuri, Azure): Very common but outdated signatures make it easy to bypass” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Small B2B sites with mainly CMS‑based content (less relevant for custom APIs)” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · soft negative
“For most small businesses, Sucuri provides the best balance of protection, features, and price.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“1. Sucuri (Best Overall for Budget)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Sucuri is highly recommended specifically for WordPress websites and small business sites” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative

What the models said about Imperva Cloud WAF

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Imperva SecureSphere due to the documented critical bypass CVEs.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid enterprise solutions (Imperva, Akamai, F5)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Effective for bots/anti-bot but cracked in some 2023 attacks; bypasses with double encoding or anti-bot evasion. High cost and tuning needs.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Top security efficacy scores (100% in recent SecureIQLab testing), strong API security, fully managed options | Companies wanting maximum protection with minimal in-house effort” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Cloudflare and Imperva often score highest in detection rate (70-90%+) with balanced false positives” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
“For enterprise-grade security with data-layer coverage: Imperva WAF offers comprehensive protection and hybrid deployment options.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.