We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"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."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"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."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"Its technical support could be better."
"The product's user interface is an area with shortcomings as it can be quite confusing for users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"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."
"NGINX App Protect would be improved with integration with Shape and F5 WAF, which would make it easy for users to manage all their web application security with a single solution."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.
