We performed a comparison between Azure Front Door 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."You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"The web application firewall is a great feature."
"The most valuable feature is that you can implement resources globally. It does not depend on location and ability or something like that. This is to connect clients around the world."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"The solution is good."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall provides optimized performance, a user-friendly environment, helpful dashboards, and is simple to use."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Its recommendation about the probabilities on the website is great. It also has free probability managers for the website, which is really helpful. The protection engine, signature-based protection behavior, and analysis features are also great. It also has an ATP module for sandbox scanning and behavior analysis for file uploads."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward, especially if you enlist assistance."
"Setup of this solution is straightforward. It's a stable and scalable solution, with good performance and fast technical support."
"The stability of the solution is good. I don't think we've experienced bugs, crashes, or glitches."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"There's a limitation on the amount of global rules we can add."
"The product's features are limited compared to Cloudflare. The tool also doesn't work well in a hybrid environment. I would like to see a way to add personalized APIs in the system."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"One of Barracuda's limitations is its user interface. The GUI for configuration is not intuitive and has remained largely unchanged for the past 10 to 12 years."
"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."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"I would like to see better controlling of the traffic."
"They could improve their performance, support, and their upgrades. Their updates used to be good. Their improvements were right on the money but nowadays, the updates are minor."
"The documentation is lacking. It's not like what you'd get if you were using Juniper or Cisco. They need to expand on it and make it more useful."
"The reporting aspect of the solution needs improvement. I don't find that it's very good. They could do some work on it to make it much better. It's not that the reporting isn't secure. It's just that I would prefer to store my reports for an extended period of time. Right now, that's not possible and I'd prefer it if that could change. I also would say that the reports themselves are expensive."
"I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". 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". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and AWS Global Accelerator, whereas Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Cloudflare. See our Azure Front Door 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.