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

Azure Web Application Firewall vs NGINX App Protect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Web Application Firewall
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (20th)
NGINX App Protect
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (21st), API Security (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 5.4%, up from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NGINX App Protect is 2.2%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Thomas Zebar - PeerSpot reviewer
May 4, 2023
Is priced well, is stable, and the initial setup is straightforward
I previously used Barracuda Web Application Firewall. I hope that Azure Web Application Firewall will look at other products and replicate some of their functionality. Azure WAF is doing great because it is designed to host web applications in Azure. However, it can be improved with other services. Barracuda is the most advanced firewall in the industry, so Azure WAF could pick some of its features and replicate them into its own application firewall. Barracuda WAF was deployed in parallel to the traffic. Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic. It should support both public and private points of presence. Additionally, like Barracuda, Azure WAF should have an inspection engine that covers not just Microsoft products, but also products from other manufacturers. This would be a great addition to the product and would increase its security functionality.
Tomaz Sobczak - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 25, 2024
Signature-based detection, DOS protection, and bot protection
NGINX App Protect is easier to automate and configure, or manage from an API. This is good for securing applications. However, it's not suitable for more complex tasks. NGINX App Protect positively impacted performance changes. There's a cache or it works like a proxy, so it can speed up…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Web Application Firewall is its ability to filter requests and block false positives by using custom rules and the OWASP rule set."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"It has been a stable product in my experience."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"There's a cache, or it works like a proxy, so it can speed up applications."
"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 most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
 

Cons

"The knowledge base could be improved."
"Deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"In Brazil, we have some problems with the phone service that affect our connection with the cloud. However, it isn't common."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"The management can be improved."
"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 could improve security."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"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."
"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."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."
"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"NGINX is not expensive."
"There are no additional fees."
"The pricing is reasonable because NGINX operates on an instance basis."
"The price of NGINX App Protect is not much different from the products that fall under the leader category of Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The licensing fees for this solution are pretty expensive for what it does, but there is no alternative."
"There is a license needed to use NGINX App Protect."
"The product's price is high."
"Really understand the licensing model, because we underestimated that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?
The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month. This cost is one of the main reasons why we selected Azure Web Application Firewall. It provides enough functionality for our needs.
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
Microsoft is constantly working on improvements. We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls. Th...
What needs improvement with NGINX App Protect?
The product's price is high, making it an area of concern where improvements are required. The tool's licensing model is also not good. The product should have more documentation, especially like t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
NGINX WAF, NGINX Web Application Firewall
 

Learn More

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. NGINX App Protect and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.