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."AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"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."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The ease of deployment of the product is valuable to me."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"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."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"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."
"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."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"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."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The price could be improved."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"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."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"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."
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.