We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and NGINX App Protect 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 don't need help from Barracuda to help with the deployment. The deployment is easy."
"The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks."
"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 stability of the product is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the rule set."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"If an attack is coming continuously, you can ask the device to block it temporarily for two to three minutes. F5 has not provided us with an option to block certain IPs for some time. Barracuda can help you block someone if the source is from a different IP. You can apply the rule to the device and block it for whatsoever time you want. The solution will unblock the IP after the prescribed time as well."
"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 that there is a link in the system that will help to analyze the security of an application when something abnormal is found."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"I tested specific features and evaluated the solution against the Web Application Firewall. I conducted research to test different detection percentages. I did not use it directly for protection but for evaluation purposes."
"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 GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"I would like to see an improved capacity to store logs so that they will be available for a longer time."
"We get false positives about phishing emails."
"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."
"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."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"Its technical support could be better."
"The integration of NGINX App Protect could improve."
"Currently, the policies have to be handled manually, and you have to create from scratch, which can be a bit time-consuming, in a large environment."
"Setting policies and parameters through the UI should be more automated because the process is manual, where we can only edit one rule at a time."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our Barracuda Web Application Firewall vs. NGINX App Protect 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.