We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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 was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"It has the best documentation features."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"I tested specific features and evaluated the solution against the Web Application Firewall. I conducted research to test different detection percentages. I did not use it directly for protection but for evaluation purposes."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"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 most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The product's performance should be better."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"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."
"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."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"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."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.