We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Barracuda Web Application Firewall 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."Rule groups are valuable."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"The solution is stable."
"Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the addition of managed tools that help us create customizable rules. In case we want to block a particular request, we can make use of those rules."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"There is no one special feature, but the WAF itself is valuable: user-friendly protection against web attacks etc., authentication, reporting, accountability, alerting, and hardened OS."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"One of the strongest points is its robust issue discovery capabilities. Barracuda invests significant efforts in identifying and resolving issues. They have multiple products that work in tandem to perform these checks, which is beneficial because it automates security updates. This is the primary reason I recommend it to my customers."
"The stability of the product is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the simplicity of configuration."
"We run it with no downtime, because it has good support."
"The stability of the solution is good. I don't think we've experienced bugs, crashes, or glitches."
"The most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"The solution could use more reports."
"The solution needs to leverage some additional features to a broader scale of software-defined networks."
"We've had some blocks of the application and some false positives."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"The policy updates could be improved."
"I would like to see an improved capacity to store logs so that they will be available for a longer time."
"The usability of the interface could be improved."
"I have issues with the load balancing of the solution which is slow. The connection pooling in Barracuda also doesn't work. There is an issue when someone needs access to a site quickly. The issue is with HTTPS services. I am not sure if they have changed all these in the solution’s latest version."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Barracuda Web Application Firewall writes "Provides strong issue discovery capabilities; enhance the security parameters of web applications and suitable for medium to large enterprises". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. Barracuda Web Application Firewall 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.