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."The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"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."
"The pricing is quite good."
"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 initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"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."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"The price of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"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."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"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."
"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."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 8 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.6, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Provides security features comparable to AWS, but certificate updates take too long". 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 Azure Front Door, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), F5 Advanced WAF and HAProxy, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Mirantis Container Cloud, AWS WAF, Azure Front Door and Fortinet FortiWeb. 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.
