We performed a comparison between Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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 provides an ease of policy management."
"The most valuable features of the solution are it is plug and play, has automated policies, a simple configuration, and is easy to create rules."
"The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"
"I like its ability to identify known attacks, including DDOS attacks. It's valuable because software must be able to stop known attacks. Application attacks are evolving all the time. When it comes to software-as-a-service, we need to have software that knows about all the latest attacks. It should also protect against major unknown attacks."
"The product's bot protection feature is valuable for our company."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The solution can improve by bundling Security Operation Center (SOC) with the WAF-as-a-Service, it would provide a lot more value to customers."
"It's a very specific solution that is only requested for a customer's web code or their global IT policy."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser. The URL also exposed the user name and the hashed password. When I log into my Barracuda WAF user portal, I could see the username and the hashed password on the URL itself. So, it is not very secure, and it is important to take that off."
"One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is ranked 30th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 5 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is rated 7.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service writes "Easy to install platform with valuable policy management features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.