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."Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"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."
"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."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"The initial setup was simple and took three to four days."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"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."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"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."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"Its technical support could be better."
"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."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 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 Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and NGINX Plus, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Noname Security and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. 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.
