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 product's initial setup phase was easy."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"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."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"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."
"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 has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the OWASP certification. Additionally, the tool's ability to enforce strong passwords and OTP within minutes is impressive. With its analytics and recommendations, it is a very good solution."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Its technical support could be better."
"Setting policies and parameters through the UI should be more automated because the process is manual, where we can only edit one rule at a time."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"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."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 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 F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, 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.