We performed a comparison between Aqua Cloud Security Platform and NGINX App Protect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"There's real-time threat detection. It can show threats and find issues based on their severity and helps us with real-time monitoring."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"Support is very helpful."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks."
"Aqua Security helps us to check the vulnerability of image assurance and check for malware."
"The solution was very user-friendly."
"Their sandboxing service is also really good."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"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 is stable."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"It is a stable solution."
"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."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"Their search feature could be better."
"The could improve their mean time to detect."
"PingSafe can be improved by developing a comprehensive set of features that allow for automated workflows."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"Aqua Security could improve the forwarding of logging into Splunk and into other tools, it should be easier."
"There's room for improvement, particularly in management capabilities as it may not be comprehensive enough for all customers, and it has been lacking in the realm of cloud security posture management."
"I would like Aqua Security to look into is the development of a web security portal."
"In the next release, Aqua Security should add the ability to automatically send reports to customers."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"The integrations on CICD could be improved. If Aqua had more plugins or container images to integrate and automate more easily on CICD, it would be better."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"Its technical support could be better."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"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 configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"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 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 SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 7th in Container Security with 16 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 20th in Container Security with 20 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and SUSE NeuVector, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. NGINX App Protect report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.
