We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and HAProxy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The stability of the solution is good. I don't think we've experienced bugs, crashes, or glitches."
"It is stable and the performance is good."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"We use Barracuda to protect the application. That's the main feature we use it for."
"It allows us to scale out to multiple phase servers."
"The volumetric DDoS defense is very good because I had a problem with a lot of volumetric DDoS attacks on my servers. After using Barracuda, those attacks have stopped and all the traffic is going smoothly to my servers and the system is working really well."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"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."
"Stability is number one."
"We were able to use HAProxy for round robin with our databases, or for a centralized TCP connection in one host."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"We did not need technical support because the documentation is good."
"It is stable. Period. Will not fail unless you do something wrong."
"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"Software defined load balancing allows us to dynamically adjust and codify routing decisions. This speeds up development."
"HAProxy potentially has a good return on investment"
"The policy updates could be improved."
"The incident reporting needs to be improved."
"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."
"In the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, there should be more affordable options for WAF as a service."
"Its interface can be better. It is not very friendly."
"One of Barracuda's limitations is its user interface. The GUI for configuration is not intuitive and has remained largely unchanged for the past 10 to 12 years."
"While the UI is good, it can get a little bit complicated."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s scalability needs improvement."
"The configuration should be more friendly, perhaps with a Web interface. For example, I work with the ClusterControl product for Severalnines, and we have a Web interface to deploy the HAProxy load-balancer."
"The reconfigurability in terms of the tooling could be improved and maybe an editor plugin can be added."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"It needs proper HTTP/2 support."
"The web stats UI, which provides the status of the health and numbers, could greatly benefit from having a RESTful interface to control the load-balanced nodes. Although there is a hack around the UI (by issuing a POST request to HAProxy with parameters), a RESTful interface would greatly improve the automation process (through Chef and Ansible)."
"HAProxy is very weak in the logging and monitoring part and requires improvement."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"The GUI should be more responsive and show the detailed output of logs."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while HAProxy 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 HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Kemp LoadMaster and Radware Alteon, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Avi Networks Software Load Balancer.
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.
