We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall 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."It has been a stable product in my experience."
"It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn. It's cloud-based, so you don't need to buy or maintain any hardware infrastructure."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"It is a stable solution."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"I tested specific features and evaluated the solution against the Web Application Firewall. I conducted research to test different detection percentages. I did not use it directly for protection but for evaluation purposes."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"The management can be improved."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"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 would be improved with integration with Shape and F5 WAF, which would make it easy for users to manage all their web application security with a single solution."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
"They could provide a better user interface."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF and 42Crunch API Security Platform. See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.
