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

F5 Advanced WAF vs NGINX App Protect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

F5 Advanced WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 F5 Advanced WAF is 12.0%, up from 10.4% 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

YUSUF  TAIWO - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 26, 2023
Ensures a robust and unified security approach for our clients
My clients often seek a comprehensive security solution for their hybrid environments, with both cloud and on-premise web applications. To address this, I recommend combining F5 Advanced WAF for web application security with Fortinet solutions, including FortiGate, FortiSign, and FortiAnalyzer, for…
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

"Good dashboard and reporting."
"The most valuable features of the F5 Advanced WAF are the enhanced ASM and the performance. Additionally, the usability and effectiveness are very good."
"F5 Advanced WAF helps our engineers to learn the complete configuration, including fundamental and advanced policies."
"The solution's most valuable features include application DDoS protection, bot blocking, and HTTP header verifications."
"In terms of F5 Advanced WAF's most valuable features, I would definitely say its stability. F5 is one the most stable products. Either as the load balancer or the web application firewall, it is very stable."
"The initial setup was was easy to install."
"The anti-bot protection is the solution's most valuable feature. Safe-guard or credential staffing are also useful features."
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It is a stable solution."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The tool is not complex and is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
 

Cons

"One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy."
"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 reporting could be clearer and embedded to include our movement data."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"The BNS module needs improvement."
"For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees."
"The GUI interface can be confusing due to similar-looking tabs for policy building, traffic learning, and event logs."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"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."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"It doesn't have more advanced features like no false-positive security, which you can configure in Advanced WAF."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
"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."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve it is expensive."
"F5 Advanced WAF technical support comes at a cost, and it's expensive."
"F5 bundles up services and the bundle is what you pay for rather than individual components."
"A yearly license for F5 Advanced WAF is expensive."
"There are different licenses available to use F5 Advanced WAF, such as BT, ASM, and LPM."
"There are various plans available for Fortinet FortiWeb Cloud WAF as a Service, including a trial version."
"I think the price is very high."
"I would rate the pricing as seven out of ten"
"The solution's price is reasonable."
"There are not any additional costs we had to pay to use NGINX App Protect."
"NGINX App Protect is expensive."
"The pricing is reasonable because NGINX operates on an instance basis."
"The price of NGINX App Protect is approximately $3,000 annually. All of our licenses are observed by a managed service partner."
"There are no additional fees."
"The price of NGINX App Protect is not much different from the products that fall under the leader category of Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"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
15%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
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 do you like most about F5 Advanced WAF?
It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?
I don't have direct knowledge of the pricing. From what I know, it is not too expensive compared to other solutions.
What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?
The product could be more user-friendly for administrators. The user interface could be easier.
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

 

Sample Customers

MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 Advanced WAF vs. NGINX App Protect and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.