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 solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"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."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"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."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"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."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"Its technical support could be better."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
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.