NGINX Plus Previous Solutions
A lot of our customers have moved from Apache. Apache has a scalability issue and a concurrency issue.
View full review »AH
ArashHaghighifard
Team leader at Dana energy
We previously used Apache. We switched for security reasons and because Apache couldn't be upgraded. It had a lot of security vulnerabilities.
I used HAProxy before NGINX and I switched to the latter because of the documentation.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
NGINX Plus
April 2024
Learn what your peers think about NGINX Plus. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2024.
768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
YS
reviewer1497894
Technological architect - IT infrastructure at a government with 10,001+ employees
We did previously use a different solution for two or three years. We needed to have some security features, which made us move to NGINX.
View full review »KO
reviewer1573344
Network Engineer at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We are still using F5.
View full review »DW
Darren Whitfield
CTO at a tech vendor
We tried to use some "golden bullet" solutions but we never needed most of their features (like a built-in database environment). NGINX is a direct way to satisfy a specific need.
View full review »FA
Fabio Azambuja
CTO at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
We previously used Apache2. We switched to NGINX because I read about the better throughput that NGINX offers.
View full review »AS
Andrii Stesin
Startup Founder at a tech services company
Before NGINX, there was Squid. I have been using NGINX since its arrival on the market.
Squid is a tool of a different age, from a different (previous) generation. I started using Squid many years ago, from its pre-release beta. It was a good tool for its time and purpose: just caching proxy, which allows you to somehow save on traffic and bandwidth. At these times, the web was mostly static so it worked.
Later, both the capacities of the channels had grown 1,000-10,000 times from megabits to a 10th of gigabits per second. The web moved to mostly dynamic content, so caching proxies lost their appeal.
On the other hand, NGINX is mostly an application level gateway, not a proxy per se. It is a different tool for different tasks.
View full review »DD
Derek DeJonghe
Director of Architecture at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
When I was young, I used Apache2, because that is all I knew. I switched to NGINX once I learned of it. That's the story.
View full review »DK
reviewer1441791
Head Of Technology at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Previously, we used Apache and another solution, but I can't remember the name. It took roughly 30 minutes to scale up and down; that's one of the reasons why we switched to NGINX.
View full review »DG
Daniel Gordi
Linux System Administrator at a comms service provider with 51-200 employees
First, I used NGINX as a reverse proxy web server for Apache.
View full review »We used Microsoft ForeFront and changed because it was not stable during DDoS attacks.
View full review »Yes, Apache. It was terribly complex for usage and unstable in a production environment.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
NGINX Plus
April 2024
Learn what your peers think about NGINX Plus. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2024.
768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.