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."The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"Imperva monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"There is a quick switch between any of the the nodes if something goes wrong, where there's a there's an attack against a specific area. The security setup is reasonably easy. It's not a problem to do setups and rules and integrations. And, yeah, just the the back end team is also very willing to insist if there's questions that that we cannot answer or with these questions that we do have"
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"It has the best documentation features."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"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 helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by adding more features to the dashboard. increasing the visibility of the real-time events, besides configuring the administration itself."
"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."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Its technical support could be better."
"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."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"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 47 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 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.
