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."Has a good dashboard."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"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."
"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."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall provides optimized performance, a user-friendly environment, helpful dashboards, and is simple to use."
"The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"An area for improvement in Barracuda Web Application Firewall is attack identification. Other banks identified attacks and tracked logs that the solution wasn't able to identify because of its ready-made rules pre-deployed by the vendor. My organization raised this issue with the technical support team. Another area to improve in Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its service desk. The team resorted to stonewalling because they couldn't accept that a feature was missing in the solution, and it was only after a lot of drilling down that the service desk team accepted that, and would be adding that feature in the future. My organization had to submit a report to the Reserve Bank of India with information on the logs identified and the attacks that happened, and that there was a failure on the part of the Barracuda Web Application Firewall. The Reserve Bank of India conducts a tri-monthly cyber risk audit in all Indian banks. Even smaller banks identified and caught attacks that my organization wasn't able to do, so I was looking into other solutions that competitor banks could be using because Barracuda Web Application Firewall failed to identify some of the attacks."
"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."
"We get false positives about phishing emails."
"It would be better if their updates would be released annually."
"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 policy updates could be improved."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"The incident reporting needs to be improved."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"Its technical support could be better."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"The product's user interface is an area with shortcomings as it can be quite confusing for users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"I encountered issues with NGINX App Protect while trying to upgrade custom rules."
"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."
"The solution needs to be improved in the e-commerce portal."
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 20 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF 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.