NGINX Plus Previous Solutions

Ritesh-Bakhru - PeerSpot reviewer
Major Account Manager at Check Point Software

A lot of our customers have moved from Apache. Apache has a scalability issue and a concurrency issue.

View full review »
AH
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.

View full review »
Saurav Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior security architecture at National Payment Corporation Of India

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
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
Network Engineer at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees

We are still using F5.

View full review »
DW
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
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
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
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
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
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 »
it_user860769 - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Team Leader at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees

We used Microsoft ForeFront and changed because it was not stable during DDoS attacks.

View full review »
it_user718461 - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Engineer at a tech services company

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.