NGINX App Protect vs Wallarm NG WAF comparison

F5 and Wallarm are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. F5 is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.1, while Wallarm is ranked #40. F5 holds a 2.2% mindshare in WAF, compared to Wallarm’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of F5 users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Wallarm users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Wallarm NG WAF and NGINX App Protect are key players in the web application security market. While Wallarm NG WAF excels in adaptive security features and automation, NGINX App Protect offers superior integration with NGINX environments, providing a strong security foundation.

Features: Wallarm NG WAF's valuable features include adaptive threat detection, machine learning for real-time adaptation, and the ability to operate in blocking mode effectively. NGINX App Protect offers comprehensive traffic management, security management features, and a command-line interface for simplicity.

Room for Improvement: Wallarm NG WAF could improve its interface and expand integration capabilities for diverse infrastructures. Enhancing support for complex environments and adding more detailed analytics would be beneficial. NGINX App Protect could streamline deployment for non-NGINX infrastructures. More intuitive configuration options and enhanced reporting features could also be areas for improvement.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Wallarm NG WAF offers an easy deployment process with strong cloud-native support and responsive customer service. NGINX App Protect benefits from seamless integration with NGINX setups and a global support network, though it may be complex for users unfamiliar with NGINX.

Pricing and ROI: Wallarm NG WAF delivers a competitive pricing model demonstrating significant ROI through reduced threat mitigation expenses. NGINX App Protect, with potentially higher initial costs, offers extensive features justifying its pricing, providing a good ROI for securing extensive NGINX deployments.

To learn more, read our detailed NGINX App Protect vs. Wallarm NG WAF Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

NGINX App Protect vs. Wallarm NG WAF

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,933 peers since 2012

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

Cloudflare Web Application ...

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is 5.4%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NGINX App Protect is 2.2%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Wallarm NG WAF is 0.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall	5.4%
NGINX App Protect	2.2%
Wallarm NG WAF	0.8%
Other	91.6%

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

Featured Reviews

Dean Barisic

CTO at PlayNirvana

Advanced security reporting has protected high-traffic betting platforms from constant attacks

I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we have a dedicated IT team for that, and I'm not involved with Cloudflare much anymore. But if I were to compare them to F5, I would like to see more features that F5 offers. F5 has an option to bring the whole infrastructure, the whole WAF and all their packages, Bot Management, and everything else on your infrastructure. You need to install certain services from their side, and then you can choose if you would like requests to hit your servers immediately or if requests need to be proxied through F5 backbone. That would be a nice addition because we have 90% of the traffic as legit traffic coming from whitelisted servers. If it comes from whitelisted servers, I don't need to go every request through the backbone; I could easily just IP whitelist everything. Then I could maybe have Bot Management on my infrastructure that drastically reduces the price of Cloudflare. I would like to see Push CDN more improved in the next release of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. And maybe something similar to Pushpin that Fastly has, which is an option where you can push messages that then can be scaled globally over the network. From our perspective, if we have a listener that listens for stock updates, I would just need to have one processor that pushes those updates to the Cloudflare API, and then Cloudflare would broadcast that message to all listeners. Cloudflare will check the order of the message, and if you, as a customer, are not connected or have some kind of network issue, when you reconnect, you will receive the latest state and missing updates.

Read full review

Valerio Guaglianone

Dev Ops Engineer at adesso AG

Long-term web protection has supported reliable traffic management but needs a simpler interface

NGINX App Protect is a good product. I have used both versions from F5 -also the free version- (I mean the NGINX/NGINX One/App Protect free trial period), and I think it is a good product. It's stable, affordable, and easy to manage. NGINX App Protect is a comprehensive security solution that combines advanced WAF, DoS protection, API security, and DevSecOps automation in a lightweight, scalable package ideal for modern cloud-native architectures. The adaptive machine learning capabilities are truly commendable, as the solution can establish traffic baselines and detect anomalies in real time. It automatically adjusts security policies, minimizing the need for manual intervention and reducing false positives. Additionally, it supports scalable deployment across diverse environments, including on-premises, cloud, Kubernetes, and containers, offering both flexibility and scalability I have experience with the web server, F5 load balancer, and similar products provided by Ergon, for eg. the web application firewall and the Microgateway for K8S. I'm also familiar with F5 BIG-IP products.

Read full review

it_user796242

Information Security Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees

Helps us to monitor attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them

Set up Wallarm as a reverse proxy. Do not replace your web server. Use Wallarm first in monitoring mode, then learn from Wallarm which type of request is false positive and which type of request is not. This process takes a couple of weeks for very highly-loaded web applications (few millions of unique visitors in one month). Then you can turn Wallarm into blocking mode and everything will be fine. Do not forget to build a monitoring system, the wave, and API for it. Before we started using Wallarm, I already knew Ivan (CEO) and Stepan (COO) from a couple of years before. Ivan had his own security company and Stepan was working on a Russian security magazine called Xakep. They told us that they wanted to create a new WAF and already had a working version of it. They asked me to test it. We did tests, and it was really good. After few month after testing, we signed an agreement. Our choice was made not because we knew these guys for a long time, but because the product was really cool and we were glad to start using it as one of the first on the market!

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall deserves a perfect 10 out of 10."

"The setup process is very simple for me."

"The product has a valuable security control functionality."

"It protects web applications efficiently."

"The solution protects our application, which runs on the HTTP protocol, from DDoS attacks."

"Cloudflare WAF provides protection through rules and functionalities like Cloudflare's SDRAP."

"We extensively use the solution every day. The solution is very stable; we haven’t seen any glitches."

"Cloudflare is cheaper compared to Azure WAF, which I have considered before."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pros

"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."

"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."

"NGINX App Protect has positively impacted my organization by adding an additional layer of security on top of my infrastructure layer, which I consider quite helpful."

"There's a cache, or it works like a proxy, so it can speed up applications."

"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."

"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."

"It is a stable solution."

"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."

More NGINX App Protect pros

"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."

"With active threat detection, we are no longer over-swamped with tons of useless events."

"Perimeter control and active vulnerability scanner are the most valuable features."

"The most powerful feature is the ability to first learn what type of query to make to your web application when it is attacked and what type of query creates a false positive to your app."

"Vulnerability scanner and WAF are valuable features."

"They are the only solution that fits our success criteria and business objectives: WAF must have a low (<5%) false negative rate and be ready to protect from all well-known web attacks."

Cons

"We have noticed some latency when the call goes through the firewall. That could be improved."

"I have experienced some difficulties with Cloudflare's support as a customer based in India."

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."

"The product can improve by having more multitenancy capability, which is currently not available."

"The reporting could be more granular."

"They have some limitations with third-party integrations."

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall cons

"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."

"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 GUI and web GUI configuration could be improved to be easier to manage and use."

"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."

"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."

"They could provide a better user interface."

"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."

"NGINX App Protect could improve security."

More NGINX App Protect cons

"Wallarm uses a learning mechanism to detect attacks and to avoid false positives. If Wallarm blocks some illegitimate request, then you can go to the management console and mark this request as false positive, but sometimes this does not work properly."

"There were several stability issues during the first pilot."

"It needs more customization in PDF reports."

"Technical support is 6 or 7 out of 10. Sometimes we have had trouble with communication and understanding."

"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm."

"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."

"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."

"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"

"What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing? I believe the pricing is not the best, but it's reasonable and acceptable. We also use the McAfee system in parallel. In terms of pricing, its okay - not great, but not bad either. It falls in the middle, which is acceptable. In terms of support licensing, last time, we were searching for a solution, and we considered products from resellers rather than directly from the cloud provider. However, the pricing we encountered was exceptionally high. As a result, we are inclined to select support from the reseller."

"Cloudflare offers different types of subscriptions for businesses, enterprises, and personal users, and the pricing is negotiable."

"The solution is expensive."

"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."

"The solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

"NGINX is not expensive."

"The solution's price is reasonable."

"The product's price is high."

"The price of NGINX App Protect is not much different from the products that fall under the leader category of Gartner Magic Quadrant."

"There is a license needed 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."

"Our licensing costs are about $40,000 a year."

"There are not any additional costs we had to pay to use NGINX App Protect."

More NGINX App Protect pricing and cost advice

"Pricing must be cheaper than the competition and the licensing must be good."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

13%

Computer Software Company

11%

Comms Service Provider

10%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Government

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	12

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?

The price of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is reasonable.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?

I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?

We are using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's advanced reporting and analytics tools with their Zero Trust, so e...

See all answers

What do you like most about NGINX App Protect?

It's very easy to deploy.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NGINX App Protect?

I will not be able to answer about my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for NGINX App Protect, as so...

See all answers

What needs improvement with NGINX App Protect?

I think NGINX App Protect could be improved by having it come out of the box with NGINX.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 8% of the time

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 7% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 6% of the time

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 6% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Competitors

Fortinet FortiWeb vs NGINX App Protect

Compared 9% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs NGINX App Protect

Compared 7% of the time

AWS WAF vs NGINX App Protect

Compared 6% of the time

Haltdos Enterprise WAF vs NGINX App Protect

Compared 6% of the time

Azure Front Door vs NGINX App Protect

Compared 5% of the time

More NGINX App Protect Competitors

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Akamai API Security vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Cequence Security vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Venusense Web Application Firewall vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 8% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 3% of the time

More Wallarm NG WAF Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

March 2026

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall report

Download Cloudflare Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

NGINX App Protect

March 2026

Download NGINX App Protect product report

Buyer's Guide

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

March 2026

Download Wallarm NG WAF product report

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF

NGINX WAF, NGINX Web Application Firewall

Wallarm NG-WAF

Overview

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's intuitive dashboard enables users to build powerful rules through easy clicks and also provides Terraform integration. Every request to the WAF is inspected against the rule engine and the threat intelligence curated from protecting over 27 Million websites. Suspicious requests can be blocked, challenged or logged as per the needs of the user while legitimate requests are routed to the destination, agnostic of whether it lives on-premise or in the cloud. Analytics and Cloudflare Logs enable visibility into actionable metrics for the user.

Cloudflare

NGINX App Protect application security solution combines the efficacy of advanced F5 web application firewall (WAF) technology with the agility and performance of NGINX Plus. The solution runs natively on NGINX Plus and addresses some of the most difficult challenges facing modern DevOps environments:

Integrating security controls directly into the development automation pipeline
Applying and managing security for modern and distributed application environments such as containers and microservices
Providing the right level of security controls without impacting release and go-to-market velocity
Complying with security and regulatory requirements

NGINX App Protect offers:

Expanded security beyond basic signatures to ensure adequate controls
F5 app‑security technology for efficacy superior to ModSecurity and other WAFs
Confidently run in “blocking” mode in production with proven F5 expertise
High‑confidence signatures for extremely low false positives
Increases visibility, integrating with third‑party analytics solutions
Integrates security and WAF natively into the CI/CD pipeline
Deploys as a lightweight software package that is agnostic of underlying infrastructure
Facilitates declarative policies for “security as code” and integration with DevOps tools
Decreases developer burden and provides feedback loop for quick security remediation
Accelerates time to market and reduces costs with DevSecOps‑automated security

Wallarm NG WAF provides advanced security by integrating machine learning, making it essential for modern web applications. It offers protection against sophisticated threats and automates many processes.

Wallarm NG WAF leverages AI-driven technology to deliver robust security measures. It helps in defending web applications from cybersecurity threats with enhanced threat detection and response capabilities. Beyond vulnerability insights, Wallarm enhances security protocols, scales with growing online demands, and ensures comprehensive threat coverage, fostering a safer web environment.

What are the key features of Wallarm NG WAF?

AI-Powered Threat Detection: Identifies and mitigates sophisticated attacks efficiently.
Automated Security Updates: Continuously updates defense strategies without manual intervention.
Flexible Deployment: Easily integrates across cloud, on-premise, and hybrid setups.
Scalability: Adapts to growing traffic volumes with consistent protection.
Detailed Reporting: Provides comprehensive analytics on web security posture.

What benefits can users expect from Wallarm NG WAF?

Increased Security: Enhances threat detection and reduces vulnerabilities.
Operational Efficiency: Reduces manual intervention with automated tasks.
Cost-Effectiveness: Optimizes security expenditure by preventing potential breaches.
Time Savings: Automates repetitive actions, saving valuable time for IT teams.

In industries like finance, e-commerce, and healthcare, Wallarm NG WAF is implemented to ensure data protection and compliance with stringent security standards. Its adaptability allows it to meet industry-specific requirements, offering specialized configurations tailored to each sector's unique demands.

Wallarm

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk

Information Not Available

Panasonic. Miro. Rappi. Wargaming. Gannett. Omio. Acronis. Workforce Software. Tipalti. SEMRush.

Buyer's Guide

NGINX App Protect vs. Wallarm NG WAF

March 2026

Free Report: NGINX App Protect vs. Wallarm NG WAF

Find out what your peers are saying about NGINX App Protect vs. Wallarm NG WAF and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our NGINX App Protect vs. Wallarm NG WAF report.

See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors and best API Security 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.