We performed a comparison between Mirantis Container Cloud and NGINX App Protect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"The management console is the most valuable feature."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"The product's most valuable feature is cloud simulation to predict application behavior on the cloud."
"This solution has improved our organization with the agility, microservices approach, and scalable solutions for distributed systems."
"Very easy solution to use as it is intuitive."
"Main products are portable."
"The solution is scalable and we have plans to increase usage in the future."
"It is a stable solution. It is nearly perfect. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"I think the volume binding is a really interesting feature."
"It is a compact, complete solution that performs well."
"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 most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It is a stable solution."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"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 is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"We wanted it to provide us with something like Claroty Hub in AWS for lateral movement. For example, if an EC2 instance or a virtual machine is compromised in a public subnet based on a particular vulnerability, such as Log4j, we want it to not be able to reach some of our databases. This kind of feature is not supported in PingSafe."
"I would like PingSafe's detections to be openly available online instead of only accessible through their portal. Other tools have detections that are openly available without going through the tool."
"The recommended actions aren't always specific, so it might suggest recommendations that don't apply to the particular infrastructure code I'm reviewing."
"PingSafe's current documentation could be improved to better assist customers during the cluster onboarding process."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"The Automation tab is an add-on that doesn’t work properly. They provide a list of scripts that don’t work and I have asked support to assist but they won’t help. When running on various endpoints the script doesn’t work and if it does, it’s only a couple. There are a lot of useful scripts that would be beneficial to run forensics, event logs, and process lists running on the endpoint."
"It will be better if the product provides dynamic load-balancing capabilities."
"This solution is open-source and they need to focus on improving the Linux Operating Systems' GUI. It does not have a GUI making it not user-friendly. Additionally, the containers need to improve security and compliance."
"I would also like to see more features inside Docker as well as more integration with different solutions."
"Integration with Windows is something that can be improved."
"It would be very nice to have a GUI that can be used by any administrator, and not just people who have experience with Docker."
"The solution would benefit in improvements made to the storage, cleaning up information from the disk, and reading logs."
"An improvement would be automated testing."
"I find Docker easier to use, but I gave it to an inexperienced developer and it took him a lot of time to understand."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"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."
"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."
"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 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."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Mirantis Container Cloud is ranked 14th in Container Security with 29 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 20th in Container Security with 19 reviews. Mirantis Container Cloud is rated 8.8, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Mirantis Container Cloud writes "An easy-to-manage solution that helps to manage web pages ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Mirantis Container Cloud is most compared with SUSE Rancher, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Mirantis Container Cloud vs. NGINX App Protect report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.
