We performed a comparison between AWS 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."The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"One common use case is using detection protection for enhancing security models in AWS. Another use case is implementing log analysis and response recovery procedures for email services."
"It is a stable solution."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"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 is that there is a link in the system that will help to analyze the security of an application when something abnormal is found."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process."
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"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."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 51 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Fastly, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Noname Security and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our AWS 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.