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."This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most."
"Very easy to implement and works well."
"F5 Advanced WAF secures our connectivity and combines both the main functions of WAF (balancing and web application security)."
"Identification, ease of use, and ease of modifying it to most of our needs are valuable."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the balancer and you can change policies very easily."
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"I like them because I like the security solution. They get extra marks compared to other solutions or competitors. There are more features than any other product I can think of. They're always monitoring, and the security features offer more than other, lesser products."
"In terms of F5 Advanced WAF's most valuable features, I would definitely say its stability. F5 is one the most stable products. Either as the load balancer or the web application firewall, it is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"NGINX App Protect 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."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"Most customers encounter stability issues with the product's Big-IP logs."
"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 should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"The tool needs to improve its pricing."
"Nevertheless, F5 products are generally considered to be hard to deploy."
"It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF."
"I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"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."
"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."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 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 AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, 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.
