The annotation part of NGINX Ingress Controller is good, but it can be tedious when there are many features to specify in the annotation section, which sometimes gets messy and could be improved. However, there is a new project called Gateway APIs that has solved that problem. The annotation part itself could be improved, as overall it was good but sometimes having everything in the annotation section can be a bit cumbersome. Overall NGINX Ingress Controller is a good tool to use, but the main drawback is the annotation part, as managing many paths and features can get quite tedious and complicated.
Technical Lead: Cloud Engineering at Fiftytwo Digital Limited
Real User
Top 10
May 24, 2026
NGINX Ingress Controller can be improved with better documentation. Good documentation in the Bitnami Helm chart would have made implementation easier for us, as we had to search for many things back and forth. Most of the information we found was confused with the community version of NGINX Controller, which created confusion initially. I would appreciate an AI-based solution so that we could easily find the actual use case relevant to our situation.
Senior Network At Dxc Technology Professional at DXC Technology
Real User
Top 5
May 7, 2026
I have not integrated NGINX Ingress Controller with solutions such as Prometheus or Grafana. We have not received any projects of that nature yet. Integrating capabilities with third-party tools are mostly about monitoring or sending logs. Working with the upper layer, such as upper layer firewalls, depends on what kind of integration you are looking for.
NGINX Ingress Controller is doing better than the community edition for sure and works well when replacing Ingress Controller for OpenShift router. It is doing fine, but it is easy for the developer to develop and not easy for the other teams to work with. It is not something designed for a network security team anyway, so they cannot apply App Protect and other items. It is just for the developer. The drawback is that it is not targeting or is not easy for other non-developers to work with. The capability to manage and observe should be better for NGINX Ingress Controller. We should not rely on Prometheus and Grafana so much. The management is still in Kubernetes Master, but there is a better way for managing it.
Information Security Engineer at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Reseller
Top 20
Mar 12, 2026
In my opinion, NGINX Ingress Controller can make better improvements for ingress control, and I think they are already the leader in the Ingress and Gateway API. The Gateway API has the capability to separate the gateway responsible for the FQDN and certificate management. They separate this part within the gateway, and another part is the HTTP route which will load balance to the backend service. F5 has this kind of deployment for many years before the announcement of the Gateway API itself. Currently, there is no suggestion about complexities or functions that can simplify my life with NGINX Ingress Controller.
Python Developer and Application Analysts at All Solutions
Real User
Top 20
Jan 4, 2026
One improvement I see for NGINX Ingress Controller is that the obvious downside is the cost, as you pay for the license on top of AWS infrastructure and the pricing is not cheap. However, compared with the cost of development time, downtime, or buying multiple tools, it is often justified, so cost awareness is still necessary. I would like to see a more visual management UX and even stronger AWS native integration patterns.
NGINX Ingress Controller efficiently manages external access to services in Kubernetes, ensuring secure connection handling and traffic flow. Its robust architecture supports high availability, scalability, and performance, making it a vital component for managing ingress resources.NGINX Ingress Controller serves as a critical ingress point for Kubernetes clusters, offering vast customization options and seamless integration with NGINX and NGINX Plus. It provides enterprises with scalable...
The annotation part of NGINX Ingress Controller is good, but it can be tedious when there are many features to specify in the annotation section, which sometimes gets messy and could be improved. However, there is a new project called Gateway APIs that has solved that problem. The annotation part itself could be improved, as overall it was good but sometimes having everything in the annotation section can be a bit cumbersome. Overall NGINX Ingress Controller is a good tool to use, but the main drawback is the annotation part, as managing many paths and features can get quite tedious and complicated.
NGINX Ingress Controller can be improved with better documentation. Good documentation in the Bitnami Helm chart would have made implementation easier for us, as we had to search for many things back and forth. Most of the information we found was confused with the community version of NGINX Controller, which created confusion initially. I would appreciate an AI-based solution so that we could easily find the actual use case relevant to our situation.
I have not integrated NGINX Ingress Controller with solutions such as Prometheus or Grafana. We have not received any projects of that nature yet. Integrating capabilities with third-party tools are mostly about monitoring or sending logs. Working with the upper layer, such as upper layer firewalls, depends on what kind of integration you are looking for.
NGINX Ingress Controller is doing better than the community edition for sure and works well when replacing Ingress Controller for OpenShift router. It is doing fine, but it is easy for the developer to develop and not easy for the other teams to work with. It is not something designed for a network security team anyway, so they cannot apply App Protect and other items. It is just for the developer. The drawback is that it is not targeting or is not easy for other non-developers to work with. The capability to manage and observe should be better for NGINX Ingress Controller. We should not rely on Prometheus and Grafana so much. The management is still in Kubernetes Master, but there is a better way for managing it.
I do not think any improvement is required for NGINX Ingress Controller.
In my opinion, NGINX Ingress Controller can make better improvements for ingress control, and I think they are already the leader in the Ingress and Gateway API. The Gateway API has the capability to separate the gateway responsible for the FQDN and certificate management. They separate this part within the gateway, and another part is the HTTP route which will load balance to the backend service. F5 has this kind of deployment for many years before the announcement of the Gateway API itself. Currently, there is no suggestion about complexities or functions that can simplify my life with NGINX Ingress Controller.
One improvement I see for NGINX Ingress Controller is that the obvious downside is the cost, as you pay for the license on top of AWS infrastructure and the pricing is not cheap. However, compared with the cost of development time, downtime, or buying multiple tools, it is often justified, so cost awareness is still necessary. I would like to see a more visual management UX and even stronger AWS native integration patterns.