We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"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."
"The setup of NGINX App Protect is complex. The full process took one week to complete. Additionally, we had to change the network infrastructure platform which took one month."
"Its technical support could be better."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Currently, the policies have to be handled manually, and you have to create from scratch, which can be a bit time-consuming, in a large environment."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.