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 solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security."
"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 dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself."
"It has the best documentation features."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It is a stable solution."
"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."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the OWASP certification. Additionally, the tool's ability to enforce strong passwords and OTP within minutes is impressive. With its analytics and recommendations, it is a very good solution."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"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 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."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"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."
"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."
"They could provide a better user interface."
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 13th 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and F5 Advanced WAF. 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.