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."The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks."
"The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"It significantly improved our overall web security posture, addressing intrusions and enhancing control over web URLs in our environment."
"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."
"Has a good dashboard."
"Our customers value the solution's simplicity."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"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."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"The price could be improved."
"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."
"The policy updates could be improved."
"I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability."
"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."
"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."
"It is not stable nor mature."
"The incident reporting needs to be improved."
"I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field, and with the network needs. It is complex."
"This product could easily progress to be among the industry leaders. I think they need to improve enterprise level automation. It integrates with a small number of vulnerability scanners, so report results should be imported manually; same for SIEM integration."
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 14th 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 Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, 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.