Discover the top alternatives and competitors to NGINX App Protect based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
F5 Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with F5, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Prisma Cloud excels in cloud-native security with features like workload protection and compliance management. In comparison, NGINX App Protect provides advanced threat protection and high performance, making it a top choice for application-specific security. Prisma Cloud is cost-effective, while NGINX App Protect offers greater feature depth.
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks has a higher setup cost compared to NGINX App Protect, which offers a more affordable initial investment. NGINX App Protect is noted for its cost-effective setup, whereas Prisma Cloud presents a more significant financial commitment.
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks has a higher setup cost compared to NGINX App Protect, which offers a more affordable initial investment. NGINX App Protect is noted for its cost-effective setup, whereas Prisma Cloud presents a more significant financial commitment.
NGINX App Protect offers robust security, flexibility, and open-source advantages ideal for those prioritizing security and customization. In comparison, Azure Application Gateway integrates seamlessly with Azure's cloud, providing strong automation and ease of use for cloud-focused organizations.
The setup cost for NGINX App Protect is noted for its competitive pricing, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has a higher setup cost, appealing to enterprises prioritizing extensive cloud integrations.
The setup cost for NGINX App Protect is noted for its competitive pricing, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has a higher setup cost, appealing to enterprises prioritizing extensive cloud integrations.
NGINX App Protect offers robust reverse proxy and load balancing with automation advantages. In comparison, Azure Front Door excels in global load balancing and smooth Azure integration. Tech buyers might prefer NGINX for flexibility or Azure Front Door for its global content delivery capabilities.
NGINX App Protect incurs a higher setup cost, while Azure Front Door offers a more affordable initial setup, highlighting a significant cost difference.
NGINX App Protect incurs a higher setup cost, while Azure Front Door offers a more affordable initial setup, highlighting a significant cost difference.
AWS WAF offers customizable rules and scalability, ideal for cloud-centric security needs. In comparison, NGINX App Protect provides flexibility and bot protection, suitable for managing HTTP traffic and session control, appealing to those requiring robust on-premises capabilities.
Fortinet FortiWeb offers extensive security features and integration with Fortinet solutions, ideal for large enterprises needing advanced protection and management. In comparison, NGINX App Protect excels in flexibility and open-source integration, appealing to those utilizing command-line controls and seeking adaptability.
Fortinet FortiWeb has a higher setup cost compared to NGINX App Protect, offering a comprehensive package with advanced security features. NGINX App Protect provides a more cost-effective option with straightforward implementation and basic security functionalities.
Fortinet FortiWeb has a higher setup cost compared to NGINX App Protect, offering a comprehensive package with advanced security features. NGINX App Protect provides a more cost-effective option with straightforward implementation and basic security functionalities.
NetScaler offers robust load balancing and seamless Citrix integration, ideal for intricate traffic management and cost efficiency. In comparison, NGINX App Protect excels in flexible security and deployment, appealing to those prioritizing robust security management within OpenShift environments.
NetScaler setup costs are competitive with comprehensive features, while NGINX App Protect offers a more straightforward setup at lower initial costs. Each product ensures different benefits tailored to varied organizational requirements.
NetScaler setup costs are competitive with comprehensive features, while NGINX App Protect offers a more straightforward setup at lower initial costs. Each product ensures different benefits tailored to varied organizational requirements.
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ideal for quick deployment with dynamic profiling and SIEM integration. In comparison, NGINX App Protect offers flexibility with fine-grained control over HTTP sessions. Imperva focuses on integrated DDoS protection, while NGINX excels in reverse proxy capabilities.
Imperva Web Application Firewall has a straightforward setup cost, while NGINX App Protect offers a more complex pricing structure. Differences in setup costs are significant, which may influence user preference based on initial budget considerations.
Imperva Web Application Firewall has a straightforward setup cost, while NGINX App Protect offers a more complex pricing structure. Differences in setup costs are significant, which may influence user preference based on initial budget considerations.
NGINX App Protect suits users needing robust security and complete session control, making it ideal for on-premises setups. In comparison, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's ease of configuration and SaaS nature benefit cloud environments, offering affordable pricing and extensive feature integration across data centers.
NGINX App Protect has a higher setup cost compared to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, which is more budget-friendly. NGINX focuses on robust security features, while Cloudflare emphasizes cost efficiency and ease of deployment.
NGINX App Protect has a higher setup cost compared to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, which is more budget-friendly. NGINX focuses on robust security features, while Cloudflare emphasizes cost efficiency and ease of deployment.
Imperva DDoS offers advanced security with real-time analysis and CDN integration, appealing to enterprises needing comprehensive protection. In comparison, NGINX App Protect’s flexibility in application control suits organizations seeking customizable deployment and cost-effective options with strong traffic management capabilities.
Imperva DDoS has competitive setup costs, while NGINX App Protect offers a more budget-friendly option. The key difference lies in the initial investment required for adoption, making NGINX appealing for those with limited setup budgets.
Imperva DDoS has competitive setup costs, while NGINX App Protect offers a more budget-friendly option. The key difference lies in the initial investment required for adoption, making NGINX appealing for those with limited setup budgets.
NGINX App Protect offers flexibility with security features like load balancing and integration capabilities. In comparison, Akamai App and API Protector emphasizes scalability with cloud-based DDoS protection. NGINX suits those needing flexible policies, while Akamai offers broader attack adaptability.
NGINX App Protect offers a streamlined setup process with lower initial costs, while Akamai App and API Protector provides a comprehensive implementation at a higher setup expense.
NGINX App Protect offers a streamlined setup process with lower initial costs, while Akamai App and API Protector provides a comprehensive implementation at a higher setup expense.
NGINX App Protect offers flexibility and control for environments needing customization and security, ideal for complex settings. In comparison, Azure Web Application Firewall simplifies management within the Azure ecosystem, providing seamless integration and configuration for Azure-native workloads.
Wallarm NG WAF appeals to tech buyers with its cloud integration and real-time threat detection. In comparison, NGINX App Protect attracts those needing robust security and microservices support. Wallarm's ease of deployment suits agile teams, whereas NGINX provides comprehensive security tools for larger enterprises.
Wallarm NG WAF offers a straightforward setup with no obvious initial cost, whereas NGINX App Protect often involves higher upfront expenses for deployment.
Wallarm NG WAF offers a straightforward setup with no obvious initial cost, whereas NGINX App Protect often involves higher upfront expenses for deployment.
Open-appsec offers robust security management capabilities with seamless integration into existing systems, providing features that emphasize adaptability and control. Users appreciate its extensive threat detection but suggest enhancements in documentation clarity and response time optimization to align better with diverse user preferences.
NGINX App Protect is known for strong security headers and versatility but needs enhanced integration and documentation. In comparison, FortiWeb focuses on machine learning and cost-effective solutions, yet requires improved scalability and database updates. Each offers distinct strengths for varied security needs.
NGINX App Protect offers straightforward setup costs, while FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) tends to be higher due to additional configuration needs, potentially making NGINX more attractive for budget-conscious enterprises.
NGINX App Protect offers straightforward setup costs, while FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) tends to be higher due to additional configuration needs, potentially making NGINX more attractive for budget-conscious enterprises.
nevisProxy controls user access and protects sensitive data, applications, services, and systems from internal and external threats, without compromising on user-friendliness.
