We performed a comparison between Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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 features of the solution are it is plug and play, has automated policies, a simple configuration, and is easy to create rules."
"It provides an ease of policy management."
"The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"
"The product's bot protection feature is valuable for our company."
"I like its ability to identify known attacks, including DDOS attacks. It's valuable because software must be able to stop known attacks. Application attacks are evolving all the time. When it comes to software-as-a-service, we need to have software that knows about all the latest attacks. It should also protect against major unknown attacks."
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy."
"The solution can improve by bundling Security Operation Center (SOC) with the WAF-as-a-Service, it would provide a lot more value to customers."
"It's a very specific solution that is only requested for a customer's web code or their global IT policy."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser. The URL also exposed the user name and the hashed password. When I log into my Barracuda WAF user portal, I could see the username and the hashed password on the URL itself. So, it is not very secure, and it is important to take that off."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules. The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. The price of the solution can be reduced a bit."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"Microsoft needs to work on their documentation."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is ranked 30th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 5 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is rated 7.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service writes "Easy to install platform with valuable policy management features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Azure Front Door. See our Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.