We performed a comparison between Azure 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 is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"NGINX App Protect's best features are auto-learning, which creates a profile of applications that are deployed, bot protection, and force protection, which lets you configure your brute force policy and alert for and prevent brute force attacks."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"The management can be improved."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"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 price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"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 solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"Its technical support could be better."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
More Azure Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. Azure Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Web Application Firewall writes "It's a good option if you want a solution that's ready to go and easy for your team to learn". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Azure Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, Azure Firewall and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF and 42Crunch API Security Platform. See our Azure 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.