Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

NGINX App Protect vs SUSE Rancher comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

NGINX App Protect
Ranking in Container Security
25th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (16th), API Security (7th)
SUSE Rancher
Ranking in Container Security
33rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of NGINX App Protect is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SUSE Rancher is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
NGINX App Protect0.3%
SUSE Rancher0.4%
Other99.3%
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Saurav Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers protection to users from external threats
NGINX App Protect secures our company's application, and it has helped me a lot, considering that we have critical infrastructure in India where we see how lots of attacks come onto our organization's servers. The tool offers protection against multiple threats present in India's IT ecosystem. The tool helps our company to make our payments secure, meaning it has the ability to provide a secure payment environment in India. Speaking about the improvements in our company's application performance since implementing NGINX App Protect, the gRPC support for the solution is very low. My company is not getting any proper documentation on how to deploy gRPC over NGINX App Protect. I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. People can use the product as their company's base server, WAF, or for its proxy manager, depending on the business requirements. My company follows PCI DSS compliance because we operate in a payment-related industry. Right now, my company follows all the standards, so we comply with all the requirements and policies. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
Sachin Deorah - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables seamless local Kubernetes development and quick deployment to the cloud
Rancher Desktop provides support for Kubernetes setup on local machines. It allows us to run Kubernetes as per our requirement, and the desktop application offers a good UI. We use Rancher Desktop for local development, testing APIs locally, and it helps to seamlessly publish to the cloud. This makes it a valuable tool for developers.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"The stability of the product is very impressive since it handles 60,000 to 70,000 requests or transactions per second."
"I would say that the most valuable feature is the ability to operate in a DevOps environment and to be configured through API and pipeline by the developers themselves."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working."
"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."
"Rancher Desktop provides support for Kubernetes setup on local machines."
"Rancher Desktop provides support for Kubernetes setup on local machines."
"The most valuable features of SUSE Rancher include the user interface and the display features."
 

Cons

"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."
"It doesn't have more advanced features like no false-positive security, which you can configure in Advanced WAF."
"The product's price is high, making it an area of concern where improvements are required. The tool's licensing model is also not good."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"It would be better if it were easier to implement and if there was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service, to avoid disruptions after implementation."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Some initial setup and configuration were required by the admin side for enabling security policies, which were not supported initially."
"Some initial setup and configuration were required by the admin side for enabling security policies, which were not supported initially."
"Additional features for a paid solution should be included, such as more detailed insights, better graphics, and an improved user interface."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's price is reasonable."
"There is a license needed to use NGINX App Protect."
"NGINX App Protect is expensive."
"There are not any additional costs we had to pay to use NGINX App Protect."
"There is a monthly or annual subscription to use NGINX App Protect. There are not any additional costs to the subscription."
"The licensing fees for this solution are pretty expensive for what it does, but there is no alternative."
"The price of NGINX App Protect is approximately $3,000 annually. All of our licenses are observed by a managed service partner."
"Our licensing costs are about $40,000 a year."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Transportation Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise11
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NGINX App Protect?
I don't know the pricing yet because in my other project, I was not part of the buying side and I was just starting to look at options.
What needs improvement with NGINX App Protect?
It would be better if it were easier to implement and if there was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service, to avoid disruptions after impl...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SUSE Rancher?
Rancher is free of cost for us as it is open source. However, there might be costs involved when using Kubernetes on cloud services.
What needs improvement with SUSE Rancher?
I believe additional features for a paid solution should be included, such as more detailed insights, better graphics, and an improved user interface.
What is your primary use case for SUSE Rancher?
My primary use case for SUSE Rancher is managing Kubernetes clusters, allocating them to different users, and monitoring workloads. I manage all cluster-related activities through Rancher.
 

Also Known As

NGINX WAF, NGINX Web Application Firewall
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about NGINX App Protect vs. SUSE Rancher and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.