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."Its inline transferring mode is the most valuable because it is 100% transparent. When you change the IP, there is no change on the network side. If you can't and want to try to reach an IP, you can reach the server IP. There are many other advanced security features in it. The smallest appliances of Imperva can handle the highest traffic at a customer site. For example, a smaller appliance from Imperva can provide you the same security as an F5 product."
"The most important feature I have found to be the ease in how to do the backup and restores."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Imperva is a Gartner leader, so its scalability, performance, and features are excellent."
"I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"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."
"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."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by providing better features, such as improved prevention of zero-day attacks. Additionally, it should include a VR meta-analysis."
"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."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"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."
"Its technical support could be better."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"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 Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 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 AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF and Fortinet FortiWeb. 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.
