Compare AWS WAF vs. NGINX Web Application Firewall

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. NGINX Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system.""The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications.""It's simple, easy to use.""It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed.""It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need.""The customized billing is the most valuable feature.""The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less.""The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."

More AWS WAF Pros »

"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall.""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.""WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."

More NGINX Web Application Firewall Pros »

Cons
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats.""In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications.""The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on.""We need more support as we go global.""In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler.""They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.""The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.""For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"

More AWS WAF Cons »

"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary.""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."

More NGINX Web Application Firewall Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"It's an annual subscription.""There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.""There are different scale options available for WAF.""AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39.""It has a variable pricing scheme.""We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."

More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The licensing fees for this solution are pretty expensive for what it does, but there is no alternative.""Our licensing costs are about $40,000 a year."

More NGINX Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
456,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.
Top Answer: Sometimes it's a bit difficult to check the rules because when you apply a rule, sometimes it's too much and we need to rewrite the rules and make compromises on the rules because it will block too… more »
Top Answer: Our primary use case is to protect our internal web solution. We use it to have an internal application for our customers. We are an SME worldwide company, so we have some internal website solutions… more »
Top Answer: 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.
Top Answer: The licensing fees for this solution are pretty expensive for what it does, but there is no alternative. The only alternative is Imperva, but that is even more expensive.
Top Answer: This firewall should support more of the network layers. Profiling capability should be improved. Setting policies and parameters through the UI should be more automated because the process is manual… more »
Ranking
Views
9,807
Comparisons
8,100
Reviews
14
Average Words per Review
519
Rating
7.6
Views
2,248
Comparisons
1,850
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
584
Rating
8.0
Popular Comparisons
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Also Known As
AWS Web Application FirewallNGINX WAF
Learn
Amazon
F5
Overview

AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

Even when you understand security, it is difficult to create secure applications, especially when working under the pressures so common in today’s enterprise. The NGINX Web Application Firewall (WAF) protects applications against sophisticated Layer 7 attacks that might otherwise lead to systems being taken over by attackers, loss of sensitive data, and downtime. The NGINX WAF is based on the widely used ModSecurity open source software.

Offer
Learn more about AWS WAF
Learn more about NGINX Web Application Firewall
Sample Customers
eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao Internationalm.a.x IT
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company27%
Comms Service Provider18%
Media Company16%
Financial Services Firm6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider26%
Computer Software Company25%
Media Company12%
Financial Services Firm6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise33%
Large Enterprise47%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. NGINX Web Application Firewall and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.

AWS WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 14 reviews while NGINX Web Application Firewall is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.6, while NGINX Web Application Firewall is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Use this product to make it possible to deploy web applications securely". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX Web Application Firewall writes "A stable system with good security and load balancing". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 BIG-IP, Akamai Kona Site Defender, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Signal Sciences, whereas NGINX Web Application Firewall is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Sucuri and Cloudflare. See our AWS WAF vs. NGINX Web Application Firewall 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.