We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced 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."Provides good protection from attacks."
"I definitely recommend this solution because of the time you save on analysis."
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the balancer and you can change policies very easily."
"The product has valuable features for load balancing, monitoring tools, and HPXpress services."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the easy identification of events and customization. We can pinpoint our settings."
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"The solution is stable."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"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's very easy to deploy."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"It is a stable solution."
"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 is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"They should work on the virtualization of NGINX."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"There is a gap in report management."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"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 product's user interface is an area with shortcomings as it can be quite confusing for users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"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."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Azure Web Application Firewall, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our F5 Advanced 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.
