We performed a comparison between Azure Web Application Firewall 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 has good dashboards."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"It has the best documentation features."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"The management can be improved."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"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."
"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."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"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."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"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."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security. See our Azure Web Application Firewall 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.
