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."I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"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 stable solution."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"It has the best documentation features."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"The setup is complicated."
"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."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"We haven't faced any problems with the solution."
"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."
"Its technical support could be better."
"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."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 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, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, 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.