We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."I like the tool's stability and performance."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"It is a stable solution."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"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 policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"They could provide a better user interface."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, Azure Front Door and Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Noname Security. See our Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.