We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiWeb 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."It is a stable product."
"The most valuable features in Fortinet FortiWeb are sandboxing and threat prevention."
"FortiWeb offers machine learning in the latest product. This fixed many problems. There are no false negatives."
"The policies and the filtering are the most valuable features, especially traffic, URL, and application filtering. The solution is excellent at detecting vulnerabilities."
"We were able to protect our web servers from outside attacks."
"The GUI is user-friendly and it's easy to understand how to manage it."
"It's the extra security that is the most valuable feature. You have insight into your traffic. There are some great insights into what utilities hackers are trying to exploit. It blocks a lot of stuff from the internet."
"Some of the threat detection analytics and the filtering capabilities they give us for filtering a certain type of information that we don't want coming into the site are its valuable features. The analytics are pretty good in terms of being able to see what threats have been detected and mitigated, where they're coming from, and things like that."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It has the best documentation features."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"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 policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"The false positives are annoying."
"We use Kubernetes, so I would like to have a plugin to configure FortiWeb Cloud automatically using Kubernetes Ingress. That would reduce the complexity of setting up an Ingress object in Kubernetes. Some competing solutions help you configure Ingress and Kubernetes automatically."
"Fortinet WAF came out recently, and there is not much feedback about customer experience. For each project, customers ask about the scenarios and references of the customers who have implemented this solution, which we don't have. They need to simplify the customer experience and provide more information so that we can propose Fortinet Fortiweb as a WAF solution to customers and convince them. They need to improve their service and training. We need good training to implement and use it properly and know more about it. We still don't know much about Fortinet WAF. We didn't get any proper training sessions. Other vendors like Cisco, Palo Alto, Check Point, and Barracuda provide such sessions. Whenever we receive a request from a customer for this solution, we just give the price. We don't propose this solution because we don't know much about it. We propose whatever we are familiar with and what is supported."
"The GUI could be better. It's limited."
"We would like to know more about the integration with the hardware or security products, such as Gemalto, because we need to move to that point."
"Their documentation is fairly complete, but it's sometimes a little bit difficult to search for exactly what you're looking for to resolve an issue. There have been times when we've gone to try to search for areas that we needed to get information on, and it has not always been extremely clear exactly how a particular thing needs to be set up."
"The memory use in each of the appliances is problematic."
"We have had problems with deployments where we've had to contact technical support to resolve them."
"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."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"Its technical support could be better."
"The setup of NGINX App Protect is complex. The full process took one week to complete. Additionally, we had to change the network infrastructure platform which took one month."
"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."
Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our Fortinet FortiWeb 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.
