We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare 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 initial setup is easy."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"We run it with no downtime, because it has good support."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic content filtering."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"It is stable and the performance is good."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"The web application firewall brought us good security and a view of the accesses/blocks of the entire domain and subdomain that were accessed both by region (country) and IPs."
"Generally, I am satisfied with this product."
"The technical support is good."
"Cloudflare allows us to self-host services such as Rocket.Chat and Node-RED, in high-availability mode, thanks to round robin DNS which allows us to share one hostname between our two locations."
"The most valuable feature of Cloudflare is that it has a free version. They give us the free version with the anti-DDoS features and also the load balancing solution."
"New and innovative way to protect the client's data."
"What I like best about Cloudflare is that my company can use it to trace and manage applications and monitor traffic. The solution tells you if there's a spike in traffic. Cloudflare also sends you a link to check your equipment and deployment and track it through peering, so it's a valuable tool."
"Smaller businesses have seen great ROI due to the low investment and strong performance."
"In the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, there should be more affordable options for WAF as a service."
"While the UI is good, it can get a little bit complicated."
"They should improve their features, so they easily compare to the competition."
"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."
"The incident reporting needs to be improved."
"The policy updates could be improved."
"It is not stable nor mature."
"The solution could use more reports."
"Cloudflare could offer a better view or maybe dashboards of the main resources used in the client."
"Technical support is lacking."
"The solution could work at being less expensive. It costs a lot to use it."
"It should be easier to collect the logs with companies like Sumo. However, based on my discussions with the salespeople, I understand that's how they make their money. With the enterprise product, they want people doing those kinds of enterprise features to do the logging. They want them to pay a lot of money, and that's where I have an issue with them. That should be a default. You should be able to get the log no matter what. The logging should be universal."
"We're facing challenges due to an upgrade in the machine learning model. The problem arises from some users abusing the APIs, resulting in an influx of suspicious traffic. Cloudflare's learning model mistakenly identifies this traffic as human. Consequently, it assigns it a higher trust score, akin to legitimate human traffic, causing complications in our architecture. Previously, such traffic would have been categorized as suspicious, enabling us to apply appropriate blocking rules. However, we encounter difficulties distinguishing between genuine and suspicious traffic with the new categorization. Despite these challenges, overall, Cloudflare remains the preferred solution compared to Azure, AWS CloudFront, and Google Cloud Armor."
"The reporting can definitely be improved to offer a lot more explanation on something that may have happened or has actually happened."
"There should be a specific price list for enterprise-level customers."
"Although I think it's quite good, it doesn't provide me with all the features I would expect to have if I were using Imperva."
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 Cloudflare is ranked 1st in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 57 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Cloudflare is rated 8.4. 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 Cloudflare writes "It's easy to set up because you point the DNS to it, and it's working in under 15 minutes". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Imperva DDoS, whereas Cloudflare is most compared with Akamai, Azure Front Door, Imperva DDoS, AWS Shield and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. See our Barracuda Web Application Firewall vs. Cloudflare report.
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.