We performed a comparison between Imperva 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."We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"It has fewer false positives"
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"The solution is scalable."
"Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"It is a stable solution."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"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 there is a link in the system that will help to analyze the security of an application when something abnormal is found."
"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."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size. Learning capability of the device is quite weak."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"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."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our Imperva 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.