NGINX Reviews

Config files aren't as straightforward as Apache.

Better built in documentation

Handling of large numbers of certificates.

Lack of logging tools - Simply writes logs to files that you have to manually navigate.

No GUI - All configuration from a console. This could be a pro or a con to some.

I had some initial problems proxying PHP.

It’s easy to over complicate your setup.

Like many applications, some of the error codes can be pretty ambiguous.

Load balancing is the thing where Nginx needs more improvement when I compare it with HAProxy. HAProxy provides more flexibility than Nginx for load balancing for clustered applications.

Nginx monitoring is good but not best. Teams have to improve the monitoring of Nginx where we can easily track the ddos attacks or multiple connections from one IP or multiple requests coming from one IP then they need to block it etc. i.e. Nginx must provide more flexibility in configuring more scenarios, which we do manually to improve the application performance.

Nginx needs improvement in the logging mechanism. Nginx must provide their own commands to get the desired output from the logs. So that instead of using unix commands and grep particular things, if Nginx provides better commands which can easily trace the logs in desired way, it will bring more flexibility to the system administrator.

Less community support compared to Apache

Less extensive list of modules compared to Apache

Customer support can be strangely condescending, perhaps it's a language issue?

I find it a little weird how the release versions used for Nginx+ aren't the same as for open source version. It can be very confusing to determine the cross-compatibility of modules, etc., because of this.

It seems like some (most?) modules on their own site are ancient and no longer supported, so their documentation in this area needs work.

It's difficult to navigate between nginx.com commercial site and customer support. They need to be integrated together.

I'd love to see more work done on nginx+ monitoring without requiring logging every request. I understand that many statistics can only be derived from logs, but plenty should work without that. Logging is not an option in many environments.

Less well-known in communities than Apache, making it more difficult to find documentation and support

Requires manual configuration for integration with some popular CMS

Some parts or modules form Nginx Plus suite would be really useful in the Open Source world. But it's just about paying the fee or implement it yourself though.

No .htaccess support (https://www.nginx.com/resources/wiki/start/topics/examples/likeapache-htaccess/)

Low diversity and extension of modules.

A user-friendly UI console to test some configurations in a test server

Nginx plus is a bit on higher end on pricing for small organisations

Automatic Nginx configuration & services update for open source version is something which would be a welcoming step. Currently everything needs to be done manually

Web GUI console could be a slight better and some configurations from there itself would be highly appreciated

I don't really have any cons, because I recommend people switch to Nginx.

The open-source flavor of Nginx does not support automatic service discovery. In the time of Docker containers, Kubernetes and other managed cloud services, it can be difficult to manually update Nginx configurations as services change.

Nginx is quite heavy for smaller projects and low-traffic scenarios. It requires knowledge of operating and configuring, which is separate from operating the main web server. There are managed alternatives that will get web services up faster and be more reliable.

Nginx-plus has some very valuable tools that projects of any size could take advantage of. Unfortunately, it is very expensive as it includes SLA and support, putting it out of reach of all but the most well-funded projects.

Steep learning curve: you'll spend lots of time to read all manuals and specs before you can configure it correctly

SSL handling is poor

Nginx often requires some initial configuration. It's worth doing, because you'll end up with great results, but it can be slightly daunting for someone to get started using it. Apache might have a leg up in that regard--When you install Apache, typically it's just about ready to do what you want already. But the issue with Apache is that most people skip the extensive tuning phase required after that, and with nginx it becomes more just a part of the configuration process.

Sometimes, the configuration syntax, even though it's powerful and terse, isn't the most intuitive. Luckily there's plenty of documentation about what things mean and how to accomplish certain things. There may not be much that can be done about this--to have a powerful web server, you need a powerful-enough configuration language.

The nginx brand is somewhat fragmented, and it can be confusing. There's the open source nginx web server, which I've primarily been referring to. But then there's NGINX Plus, a premium subscription-based service which works with a range of other NGINX products (NGINX WAF, NGINX Amplify, NGINX Controller). I've met a number of people who weren't very familiar with nginx, and instinctively went to nginx.com first, and from there it seems like everything costs money. It's only when they realize there's a different site, nginx.org, that they find what they went looking for.

A user-friendly web console to add some configurations would be appreciated

In five years we only have had 10 minutes of unavailability because of Nginx. However, Nginx support was very helpful for us.

Management tools -- Nginx has good errors, but it would be nice if it plugged into our cloud hosting infrastructure a little easier.

Configuration error detection -- for more complex configurations, sometimes Nginx isn't overly helpful when telling us what's wrong.

There's no configuration wizard. I had to read their docs every time I make a change to the Nginx config files.

Deploying rails apps with Nginx + Passenger requires a recompilation of Nginx. It would have been better if Nginx supported a plugin system that would allow you to plug in some rails app servers into it.

There's no easy way to tell which incoming request was sent to which back-end app server. You have to do advanced tricks to keep track of those things, in case you need to see what's happening behind the scenes for debugging.

Even though Nginx is the 2nd most used web server, it is rarely recognized by anyone outside of an IT field that uses it directly. This makes it a very hard sell, especially within start-up companies (a great place for NginX) relying upon VC funding, where brand recognition of the providers/manufacturers used in your IT environment can be a factor in funding.

Due to being less known, NginX does lack on advanced community support along with modules and add-ons when compared to Apache, luckily the community support available is generally more than enough. The same goes for locating experienced NginX administrators, but again, the learning curve is very small. allowing staff to be adequately trained in a short amount of time.

Due to the first point I made, a lot of software does not come with pre-configs for NginX

Nginx has some peculiarities or "gotchas" that take getting used to.

Nginx could improve at SSL handling.

Nginx is the best asynchronous server but I could see using Apache for process-based (threaded) serving of dynamic assets as a back-end behind Nginx. So I don't think Nginx should necessarily improve in this regard as much as it's choosing the right tool for the job—Nginx for static serving, other, process-based servers for dynamic serving.

I've yet to run into a pain point with nginx.

Not as many configuration options as Apache httpd.

Can be confusing to set up if used to Apache's config options.

Confusing to figure out how to set up mods.

Community. Compare to Apache, Nginx has much smaller community support. You do not have lots of resources you can use when you encounter a problem accept digging into it and trying to figure it out yourself.

Lacks Large Scale Experience. Nginx is not the first choice for enterprise level architecture. Most large companies will use Apache instead of Nginx when it comes to large scale architecture. Here is where Nginx's lightweight advantage becomes their con.

Lack of multiple modules compatibility. Because Nginx is a lightweight focused server, it cannot be used with some other modules. That also makes Nginx favorable for people with small websites.