Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS WAF vs NGINX App Protect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.9
AWS WAF enhances security and cost efficiency by integrating with AWS, reducing the need for additional security personnel.
Sentiment score
6.9
Organizations saw positive ROI with NGINX App Protect during COVID-19, improving security and integration, anticipating future benefits.
With AWS WAF, it is easier for us to block unwanted malicious DDoS attacks and threats from coming into our web application.
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.7
AWS WAF support receives mixed reviews, praised for responsiveness and expertise, yet criticized for cost and inconsistent communication.
Sentiment score
6.3
NGINX App Protect support is praised for promptness and helpfulness but inconsistencies and costs affect user satisfaction.
Resolving issues can take time because the support personnel may lack product expertise, leading to delays.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
They reach out when you send them a ticket, and within 24 hours or less, someone is able to get back to you to solve your problem.
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
They were quick and efficient when we had issues.
Project Manager at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
AWS WAF excels in scalability and auto-scaling, efficiently handling traffic for businesses of all sizes, though improvements are possible.
Sentiment score
6.5
NGINX App Protect is scalable with diverse options but faces deployment, traffic, and configuration centralization challenges noted by users.
AWS WAF does scale in the sense that it is fully managed and has automatic scaling.
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
AWS WAF is highly rated for stability due to reliable performance, strong protection, and effective redundancy features.
Sentiment score
8.4
NGINX App Protect is praised for stability and integration, outperforming competitors, though minor improvements in HTML5 are needed.
Since it protects web applications from common attacks such as SQL injection and XSS, it is very stable.
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
We faced issues with AWS WAF when writing the custom rules.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
In terms of reliability, I would rate AWS WAF about six out of ten due to the need for improved signature sets.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
It is a quality solution, and I would rate its stability as eight out of ten.
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
 

Room For Improvement

AWS WAF requires improved integration, usability, security features, and flexible pricing to better support global users and services.
NGINX App Protect requires improved flexibility, UI, API, automation, network support, pricing, integration, and feature enhancements like security and documentation.
If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Compared to firewalls, WAFs generally provide limited stateful analysis capabilities.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
AWS WAF can be improved if the dashboard is enhanced in such a way that everything will be displayed automatically without you going in there to see what is going on.
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
There was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service.
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
 

Setup Cost

AWS WAF offers cost-effective, pay-as-you-go pricing, starting at $5 monthly, valued for integration with AWS services.
NGINX App Protect costs $3,000-$400,000 annually, considered expensive but competitive, with no hidden fees and strategic cost management possible.
The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Due to our status as an AWS shop, AWS WAF is cost-effective for us, and we benefit from discounts due to our extensive use of AWS services.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Valuable Features

AWS WAF offers threat blocking, scalability, automation, and seamless integration, enhancing security and performance with easy deployment and affordability.
NGINX App Protect provides comprehensive security features including automation, containerization, and flexible API connectivity for robust application protection.
The biggest benefit of AWS WAF for us is to filter malicious requests, so we can protect our environment and application from malicious actors.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
It has also helped to improve the posture of our application, prevent all DDoS attacks, and unnecessary traffic and SQL injection that is reducing the performance of our application.
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
AWS WAF is not stateful, it offers a time-saving solution with its custom rulesets that enhance security and simplify management.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
The most valuable feature is the ability to operate in a DevOps environment and to be configured through API and pipeline by the developers themselves.
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Detecting bots and blocking IPs have proven effective for securing applications.
Project Manager at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NGINX App Protect
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (27th), API Security (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 5.8%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NGINX App Protect is 2.0%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
AWS WAF5.8%
NGINX App Protect2.0%
Other92.2%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
JP
Project Manager at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Blocking IPs and detecting bots enhances security for medical websites
I was researching products like NGINX App Protect and F5 Advanced WAF for long-term options. I have some use for such a solution, but probably not before next year Detecting bots and blocking IPs have proven effective for securing applications. We were able to block groups of IP addresses that…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise26
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF is t...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What do you like most about AWS WAF?
The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NGINX App Protect?
I don't know the pricing yet because in my other project, I was not part of the buying side and I was just starting to look at options.
What needs improvement with NGINX App Protect?
It would be better if it were easier to implement and if there was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service, to avoid disruptions after impl...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
NGINX WAF, NGINX Web Application Firewall
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. NGINX App Protect and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.