We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and NGINX Plus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Apache has proven to be incredibly reliable, and everything has operated smoothly without encountering any issues."
"It is scalable."
"The control panel is very easy to navigate. It's similar to most hosting platforms, so it's user-friendly. Once you get used to it, managing your hosting becomes easy, too."
"The product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"The best thing about Apache is that it is open-source, so implementing my platform on-premises is less expansive than other solutions."
"The product is very cheap and stable."
"Apache Web Server is free of cost."
"Valuable features include authentication, caching, reverse proxy routing, and load balancing."
"The most valuable features are the gateway and the ability to publish to sites."
"-"
"It's lightweight software that can handle heavy loads efficiently."
"The best solution, by far, for web traffic control for things in production and just around the house."
"The web proxy and the database proxy are excellent."
"The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions."
"Supports IMAP, POP and SMTP protocols for the reverse proxy."
"There isn't a dedicated customer support available"
"There is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration."
"Adding a reverse proxy to Apache Web Server would be a significant improvement."
"The product's initial setup process could be easier for users."
"Things change very fast. We're always on the lookout for better approaches and tools. If the solution falls behind, we may have to switch."
"The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management."
"In future releases, I would like to see better server optimization."
"Lacks integration with some cloud solutions."
"Improvement needed in NGINX Plus could focus on optimizing memory usage for users."
"NGINX Plus is moderately priced, but it could give better value for money."
"Our most challenging part was to run an older PHP website reverse-proxied through NGINX. That was not fun."
"It would be great if there was even more automation to make it even easier to maintain."
"The center management system could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Only improvement needed that I would point to is scalability. With it, I mean clusterized organisation on a low level. At the moment, the best alternative is RHEL HA."
"The solution needs to be easier to setup and deploy."
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 22 reviews while NGINX Plus is ranked 2nd in Application Infrastructure with 28 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while NGINX Plus is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Apache Web Server writes "Has good security, speed and traffic handling features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX Plus writes "Quick installation and very easy to manage while doing orchestration or automation". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, IBM WebSphere Application Server, Microsoft .NET Framework, Zend PHP Engine and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas NGINX Plus is most compared with IIS, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Citrix NetScaler. See our Apache Web Server vs. NGINX Plus report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.
