We performed a comparison between NGINX App Protect and Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"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 stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"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."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"Every other security tool we've looked is good at containers, or at Kubernetes, is good at AWS, or at instance monitoring. But nobody is good at tying all of those things together, and that's really where Threat Stack shines."
"Threat Stack has connectivity."
"The number-one feature is the monitoring of interactive sessions on our Linux machines. We run an immutable environment, so that nothing is allowed to be changed in production... We're constantly monitoring to make sure that no one is violating that. Threat Stack is what allows us to do that."
"There has been a measurable decrease in the meantime to remediation... because we have so many different tech verticals already collated in one place, our ability to respond is drastically different than it used to be."
"We're using it on container to see when activity involving executables happens, and that's great."
"An important feature of this solution is monitoring. Specifically, container monitoring."
"It has been quite helpful to have the daily alerts coming to my email, as well as the Sev 1 Alerts... We just went through a SOX audit and those were pivotal."
"The rules are really great. They give us more visibility and control over what's being triggered. There's a large set of rules that come out-of-the-box. We can customize them and we can create our own rules based on the traffic patterns that we see."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"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."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"The reports aren't very good. We've automated the report generation via the API and replaced almost all the reports that they generate for us using API calls instead."
"It shoots back a lot of alerts."
"The solution’s ability to consume alerts and data in third-party tools (via APIs and export into S3 buckets) is moderate. They have some work to do in that area... The API does not mimic the features of the UI as far as reporting and pulling data out go. There's a big discrepancy there."
"The API - which has grown quite a bit, so we're still learning it and I can't say whether it still needs improvement - was an area that had been needing it."
"I would like further support of Windows endpoint agents or the introduction of support for Windows endpoint agents."
"Some features do not work as expected."
"The user interface can be a little bit clunky at times... There's a lot of information that needs to be waded through, and the UI just isn't great."
"The one thing that we know they're working on, but we don't have through the tool, is the application layer. As we move to a serverless environment, with AWS Fargate or direct Lambda, that's where Threat Stack does not have the capacity to provide feed. Those are areas that it's blind to now..."
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
NGINX App Protect is ranked 21st in Container Security with 19 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 30th in Container Security. NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform writes "SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for". NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Noname Security, whereas Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Darktrace, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR.
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.
