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."It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic content filtering."
"Some of the most valuable features are the ease of deployment, the Barracuda support, the easy-to-use console, and the granularity of the reports."
"The most valuable feature is the rule set."
"I find the solution very stable."
"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."
"Our customers value the solution's simplicity."
"This product gives us visibility into what is going on in two servers, including connections and sessions, real-time alerts, very good reporting, and KPIs. It makes managing security of a critical server very easy, with a friendly GUI."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"The price could be improved."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field, and with the network needs. It is complex."
"There are issues when upgrading firewalls and we experience different issues across customers."
"The solution could use more reports."
"If you know nothing about networks, then you can't set it up."
"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."
"The incident reporting needs to be improved."
"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."
"In the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, there should be more affordable options for WAF as a service."
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.