MIA vs. Imperva Client-side Protection: Which is Better?
You’re on the Payments Guardian website, so we might be slightly biased. But we’ll make our case. To further your research, here’s the Imperva Client-side Protection product page.
First, the differences are shown in a table, and more details are provided below.
The Differences Between MIA and Imperva Client-side Protection
Features | MIA | Imperva Client-side Protection |
|---|---|---|
Paid tier starts at | $34.95 per month | Enterprise pricing (contact sales) |
Automated PCI Compliance | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
Real-Time Script Monitoring | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (User-initiated or periodic scanning) |
Non-Intrusive Implementation | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
AI-Driven Analysis | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (Unidentified) |
Proactive Threat Blocking | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (Alerts Only) |
Historical Script Tracking | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ No (Unidentified) |
Screenshot-Based Monitoring | ❌ No | ✅ Yes (Snapshots of checkout process) |
Protects Invoice Payment Links | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
Focuses on Client-Side Attacks | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (Shopping cart monitoring only) |
Script Justification & Categorization | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (Unidentified) |
Continuous AI Learning & Adaptation | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (Unidentified) |
Real-Time Behavioral Threat Detection | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (Unidentified) |
What We Don’t Like About Imperva Client-side Protection
Imperva Client-side Protection is a solid add-on for existing Imperva customers, offering a simple way to monitor JavaScript sources and comply with PCI DSS requirements. However, its limitations prevent it from being a proper real-time security solution.
Key Limitations of Imperva Client-side Protection:
-
Heavily relies on threat feeds and CSP policies – While these are valuable tools, they are not bulletproof against zero-day threats or dynamic script injections.
-
Relies on a “worker” crawler – Imperva’s approach appears to use a bot to check the delivered JavaScript package. Sophisticated attacks can detect this crawler and evade detection by serving clean scripts to Imperva’s scanning IPs.
-
Requires existing Imperva infrastructure – You must already be an Imperva customer to use Client-side Protection, and pricing is not transparent.
-
Manual blocking required – Unlike MIA, which can automatically restrict unauthorized scripts based on compliance rules, Imperva requires manual intervention to block malicious scripts after detection.
More About MIA
MIA doesn’t just monitor—it proactively defends merchants by detecting unauthorized script activity and enforcing security policies in real time.
Unlike Imperva, MIA is designed to automate PCI compliance for SAQ A merchants by monitoring scripts, detecting unauthorized changes, and enforcing security policies. This helps businesses stay compliant without requiring additional tools or extensive manual reporting.
MIA also retains a history of script activity for compliance validation and security audits, updating AI and large language models (LLMs) in real time to continuously improve its detection mechanisms.
Additionally, MIA is included at no additional cost for Payments Guardian merchants, while Imperva requires an enterprise subscription with undisclosed pricing.
Your Choice!
So there you have it—our take on how MIA stacks up against Imperva Client-side Protection. Have we made our case, or are you still looking for more information? If you’re ready for the most advanced AI-driven compliance and security solution available, MIA is the clear choice.
Get Started Today – Secure your business with MIA & Payments Guardian.