We performed a comparison between Magic xpa Application Platform and NGINX Plus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The speed of development is the quickest for any tool on the market."
"Without the need to compile code, the time spent in the development cycle is greatly reduced, allowing the programmer to test modifications to a program immediately after they have been saved."
"Speed of development and database connectivity (MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, Btrieve/Pervasive PSQL, ODBC, MySql, and SQLite)."
"xpa gives us a fast development speed."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"What I found most valuable in the Magic xpa Application Platform is that it has a client-server and web browser technology that's perfect for company users."
"The solution makes the managing and adapting of the software very easy."
"Being able to make changes to existing programs to comply with last minute changes in requirements, and/or being able to fix, test, review, and deploy new code in a manner of hours instead of days, definitely gives us a huge advantage over our competitors and this is only possible thanks to Magic’s speed of programming."
"The web proxy and the database proxy are excellent."
"Application Gateway with application-level firewall tool and load distributor and balancer (also serves for A/B testing)."
"With NGINX, I appreciate its ability to route traffic geographically."
"Zero Downtime has always been a strength in recommending infrastructure web services. NGINX allows me to execute such infrastructure with less complications and the ability to switch from server to server easily."
"Using NGINX Plus for web traffic distribution is fantastic. It offers performance similar to physical load balancers but with added flexibility."
"I need to highlight that the number one thing about NGINX is that it is free."
"The flexibility of its modules allow it to be scalable."
"This solution has everything."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"Support is very bad."
"In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the platform."
"The configuration of the xpa RIA mobile environment is complex and a discouragement to new developers. Also, Magic's documentation can be less than complete at times which leads to frustration for new developers. (I encourage new Magic developers to join the Magic Users Group)."
"They want to be one toolbox for everything, but primarily, we are using xpa to develop desktop applications, and in that area they're lacking functionalities, flexibility, and modern stuff."
"Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms."
"When you have several tasks, you open a screen in a task in developing mode, and you don't see the parent screens. Debugging lacks the effects to solve problems. You have to do it first in a kind of studio. Then you have to be sure that you can do it in Magic because there is almost nothing to debug it. It's practically impossible to debug. You have to be sure before you put your snippets."
"They should do in the open source version of what they did to Advanced HTTP, TCP, and UDP load balancing."
"Make modules easier to enable or disable. The beauty and ugly side of the NGINX modules is you have to know how to compile the module. For beginners or non-very technical aspirant(s) going for NGINX, they have to learn how to compile the modules."
"NGINX Plus is moderately priced, but it could give better value for money."
"The solution needs to be easier to setup and deploy."
"Our most challenging part was to run an older PHP website reverse-proxied through NGINX. That was not fun."
"I would suggest adding GUI-based configuration panels to NGINX Plus to simplify setup and management tasks."
"The user interface could be improved."
"I would like the configuration process to be more simplified."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 15th in Application Infrastructure with 10 reviews while NGINX Plus is ranked 2nd in Application Infrastructure with 28 reviews. Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6, while NGINX Plus is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Magic xpa Application Platform writes "Fast development and user-oriented functionalities, but it needs better .NET integration and a completely different pricing structure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX Plus writes "Quick installation and very easy to manage while doing orchestration or automation". Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, OutSystems, Mendix and GeneXus, whereas NGINX Plus is most compared with IIS, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Apache Web Server. See our Magic xpa Application Platform vs. NGINX Plus report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.