We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF 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."F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"It is easy to obtain dashboard compliance because security policy views are included."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the balancer and you can change policies very easily."
"The most valuable feature is artificial intelligence and to get extra internal access."
"This solution is an enterprise-class firewall that provides both load-balancing and security."
"The support experience is better than average."
"Feature-wise, they are always cutting edge and up-to-date. Many features aren't available via competitors. There's always a lot of enhanced critical features that just aren't available through anyone else, or, if they are, are too lightweight."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the overall capabilities, there is not a comparable solution on the market."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"The most valuable feature is that there is a link in the system that will help to analyze the security of an application when something abnormal is found."
"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."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the OWASP certification. Additionally, the tool's ability to enforce strong passwords and OTP within minutes is impressive. With its analytics and recommendations, it is a very good solution."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"It has the best documentation features."
"F5 Advanced needs to improve its bot protection. The solution needs to have machine learning to learn the behavior of the customer to recognize the human versus the bot. This is a difficult feature to explain to our customers. I would like documentation about the bot feature to make it easier for the customer to understand."
"The tool needs to improve its pricing."
"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."
"The accuracy of the automatic learning feature needs improvement."
"Its price should be better. It is expensive."
"Scalability could be improved."
"The Sandbox integration feature could be improved."
"Most customers encounter stability issues with the product's Big-IP logs."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"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."
"Its technical support could be better."
"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."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"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."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 20 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Azure Web Application Firewall, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our F5 Advanced WAF 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.
