We performed a comparison between AWS 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."The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system."
"AWS WAF helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection that happen within the retail industry."
"The stability of AWS WAF is valuable."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The solution is stable."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"The interface is good."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric 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."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"The cost must be reduced."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"The solution can improve its price."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"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."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"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."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Radware Cloud WAF Service, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our AWS 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.