We performed a comparison between Imperva Web Application Firewall 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."Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"It has fewer false positives"
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"The solution can scale."
"We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"The configurability of the tools and the ease of operation to be the most valuable feature of Imperva."
"Very scalable and very stable firewall for web applications, with a good interface in its cloud version. Mitigation is its most valuable feature. The technical support for this product is also good."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"It has the best documentation features."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"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."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"They can provide an option to create reports, automatically import the entire report, and create rules again. In a real-life crisis, it would be helpful to be able to import a report and generate security rules from that report. I should be able to create a simple query and import the reports automatically. It can maybe also tell us the format of the report."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"The user interface could be better."
"The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"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."
"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."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"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."
"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."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 46 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.