In terms of improvement, I would suggest adding GUI-based configuration panels to NGINX Plus to simplify setup and management tasks. This would allow users to easily create and manage policies, rules, load balancers, and traffic shaping without relying solely on the command line interface. Additionally, another area for improvement in NGINX Plus is its integration with NGINX App Protect. Currently, to utilize NGINX Protect, you need to have NGINX Plus, which might not be necessary for everyone. It would be beneficial to have the option to use NGINX Protect independently without requiring NGINX Plus.
The solution must improve its performance. Sometimes, it could be because of how a customer has implemented the tool, but it is a potential bottleneck. The product must provide a holistic view of flows to help us understand the endpoints a particular transaction went through.
IT Manager at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-07-18T02:46:44Z
Jul 18, 2023
NGINX needs to improve its factory hardware. Some start-ups keep changing their technology over time to improve control over traffic and function. NGINX needs to improve its performance. It would be good if NGINX provided a graphical user interface. We currently need to work on configuration files. It is difficult for fresher engineers to work on the solution.
I would like to see the Grafana integration in NGINX which is already present in HAProxy. Grafana integration will help the solution visualize all the data analytics on the dashboard which is currently not present.
The KPI on NGINX Plus should be more focused on load balancing and the latency in application calling from the end system. That is something currently lacking in the solution. I would also like to see a very interactive dashboard with all the KPI metrics that would help with application level troubleshooting. Finally, most people implementing this solution do not include a security model and it would be great if they could include that in the product.
NGINX cannot be a replacement for your traditional load balancer with what we use in the network today. However, with applications going toward microservices, NGINX is definitely a way forward. F5 has many traditional load balancing features, so they still need to bring some of those features to NGINX. NGINX is a very basic load balancer and cannot do as many customizations as F5. I think F5 is trying to implement those features in NGINX so they can improve the balancing on NGINX, but I think that will take some time. With the traditional F5 set up, the same OS can do load balancing, firewalls, and even policy enforcement. If we are able to bring some of those capabilities to NGINX, I think it would become a versatile solution and usage would definitely increase.
Technological architect - IT infrastructure at a government with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2022-06-28T01:04:00Z
Jun 28, 2022
I can’t speak to where the solution needs improvement. I’m just a user and I haven’t really gone in-depth in terms of looking for where the solution might have weak points. It would be great if there was even more automation to make it even easier to maintain.
The center management system was not very good, maybe their new NGINX manager product is better. I'd like to see a good web management interface in the next release.
Head Of Technology at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2020-11-04T01:47:15Z
Nov 4, 2020
Their license fee has gone up, so that is one concern that we have. We are looking for alternative solutions which compare well and fit into our budget. We are interested in an open-source version with the same set of features. We had to do a lot of custom coding around open source NGINX, which we were able to do. Compared to other similar solutions on the market, I think it's over-priced. If they reduced the price by 50%, then I would definitely like to continue with them. The scaling should be built into the software rather than configured from an outside source. Regarding cluster-management, I should be able to provide configuration directly rather than bringing down the software and then updating it and taking it back down again. Without going offline, if we can manage load balancing as a cluster — meaning I have to bring them down, update them, and then take it back. If that could be more dynamic, that would answer all of my requirements.
CTO at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2018-04-22T11:00:00Z
Apr 22, 2018
They should do in the open source version of what they did to Advanced HTTP, TCP, and UDP load balancing. They are always creating improvements and working towards new features.
NGINX Plus is a versatile solution that offers load balancing, caching, proxying, and API deployment capabilities. It can be deployed on private or public clouds and is ideal for building CDN solutions. The solution can also be used to secure web applications and replace web services like Apache.
NGINX has helped organizations improve functioning, reduce downtimes, and offer a DevOps-friendly solution. Its community support and documentation are highly regarded, and its configuration is...
In terms of improvement, I would suggest adding GUI-based configuration panels to NGINX Plus to simplify setup and management tasks. This would allow users to easily create and manage policies, rules, load balancers, and traffic shaping without relying solely on the command line interface. Additionally, another area for improvement in NGINX Plus is its integration with NGINX App Protect. Currently, to utilize NGINX Protect, you need to have NGINX Plus, which might not be necessary for everyone. It would be beneficial to have the option to use NGINX Protect independently without requiring NGINX Plus.
The solution must improve its performance. Sometimes, it could be because of how a customer has implemented the tool, but it is a potential bottleneck. The product must provide a holistic view of flows to help us understand the endpoints a particular transaction went through.
The user interface could be improved. NGINX is also too poor with streaming. We could have a better solution for streaming besides NGINX.
NGINX needs to improve its factory hardware. Some start-ups keep changing their technology over time to improve control over traffic and function. NGINX needs to improve its performance. It would be good if NGINX provided a graphical user interface. We currently need to work on configuration files. It is difficult for fresher engineers to work on the solution.
The solution needs to be easier to setup and deploy.
There is room for improvement in the pricing model.
I would like to see the Grafana integration in NGINX which is already present in HAProxy. Grafana integration will help the solution visualize all the data analytics on the dashboard which is currently not present.
The scalability could be improved.
The KPI on NGINX Plus should be more focused on load balancing and the latency in application calling from the end system. That is something currently lacking in the solution. I would also like to see a very interactive dashboard with all the KPI metrics that would help with application level troubleshooting. Finally, most people implementing this solution do not include a security model and it would be great if they could include that in the product.
NGINX cannot be a replacement for your traditional load balancer with what we use in the network today. However, with applications going toward microservices, NGINX is definitely a way forward. F5 has many traditional load balancing features, so they still need to bring some of those features to NGINX. NGINX is a very basic load balancer and cannot do as many customizations as F5. I think F5 is trying to implement those features in NGINX so they can improve the balancing on NGINX, but I think that will take some time. With the traditional F5 set up, the same OS can do load balancing, firewalls, and even policy enforcement. If we are able to bring some of those capabilities to NGINX, I think it would become a versatile solution and usage would definitely increase.
I can’t speak to where the solution needs improvement. I’m just a user and I haven’t really gone in-depth in terms of looking for where the solution might have weak points. It would be great if there was even more automation to make it even easier to maintain.
The center management system was not very good, maybe their new NGINX manager product is better. I'd like to see a good web management interface in the next release.
Their license fee has gone up, so that is one concern that we have. We are looking for alternative solutions which compare well and fit into our budget. We are interested in an open-source version with the same set of features. We had to do a lot of custom coding around open source NGINX, which we were able to do. Compared to other similar solutions on the market, I think it's over-priced. If they reduced the price by 50%, then I would definitely like to continue with them. The scaling should be built into the software rather than configured from an outside source. Regarding cluster-management, I should be able to provide configuration directly rather than bringing down the software and then updating it and taking it back down again. Without going offline, if we can manage load balancing as a cluster — meaning I have to bring them down, update them, and then take it back. If that could be more dynamic, that would answer all of my requirements.
They should do in the open source version of what they did to Advanced HTTP, TCP, and UDP load balancing. They are always creating improvements and working towards new features.