We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and NGINX App Protect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"NGINX App Protect's best features are auto-learning, which creates a profile of applications that are deployed, bot protection, and force protection, which lets you configure your brute force policy and alert for and prevent brute force attacks."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is that there is a link in the system that will help to analyze the security of an application when something abnormal is found."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It is a stable solution."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"It has the best documentation features."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"The product's user interface is an area with shortcomings as it can be quite confusing for users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Radware Cloud WAF Service, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our AWS WAF vs. NGINX App Protect report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.