We performed a comparison between Azure Front Door 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."Rules Engine is a valuable feature."
"I particularly appreciate its load-balancing capabilities as it allows us to manage multiple instances and support a global presence effectively."
"I am impressed with the tool's integrations."
"The solution is good."
"Has a great application firewall and we like the security."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"It inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks."
"Its recommendation about the probabilities on the website is great. It also has free probability managers for the website, which is really helpful. The protection engine, signature-based protection behavior, and analysis features are also great. It also has an ATP module for sandbox scanning and behavior analysis for file uploads."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"It's very simple and predictable, because Barracuda provides a vision of the current state of your application. It gives you an understanding of what is happening on your site and any attempts against you at your source. This is the main value that Web Application Firewall provides our company. These aspects are also the main reason for this documentation process."
"The stability of the product is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Setup of this solution is straightforward. It's a stable and scalable solution, with good performance and fast technical support."
"We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks."
"Our customers value the solution's simplicity."
"The user interface needs improvement as it is difficult to create the mapping to link the problem with your private address sources."
"My suggestion for improvement would be to enhance the Data Export feature to include specific tables, particularly the Azure Diagnostics table."
"This is a relatively expensive solution."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"It lacks sufficient functionality."
"The product needs to improve its latency."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"There are issues when upgrading firewalls and we experience different issues across customers."
"Sometimes when we put it in action, we have some blogs that appear as false positives. I think that it's improving. Barracuda should minimize false positives."
"We've had some blocks of the application and some false positives."
"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 platform's pricing needs improvement."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s scalability needs improvement."
"I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Azure Front Door is rated 8.8, while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Front Door writes " An easy -to-setup stable solution that enables implementing resources globally and has a good technical support team". 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". Azure Front Door is most compared with Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Akamai and AWS Global Accelerator, whereas Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Cloudflare. See our Azure Front Door 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.