We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Imperva 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."The installation is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the simplicity of configuration."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"This product gives us visibility into what is going on in two servers, including connections and sessions, real-time alerts, very good reporting, and KPIs. It makes managing security of a critical server very easy, with a friendly GUI."
"One of the strongest points is its robust issue discovery capabilities. Barracuda invests significant efforts in identifying and resolving issues. They have multiple products that work in tandem to perform these checks, which is beneficial because it automates security updates. This is the primary reason I recommend it to my customers."
"I find the solution very stable."
"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."
"Parameter Protection is a valuable feature."
"Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent."
"Learning mode and custom policies are helpful features."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"I am impressed with the product's scalability, availability, easy management, and security. We were able to integrate the product with Azure and Sentinel."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"The features I have found most valuable with Imperva Web Application Firewall are account takeover protection, advanced bot protection, and API security."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"I would like to see better controlling of the traffic."
"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."
"The documentation is lacking. It's not like what you'd get if you were using Juniper or Cisco. They need to expand on it and make it more useful."
"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."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s scalability needs improvement."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"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 usability of the interface could be improved."
"Their portal is very limited and needs improvement."
"It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
"It's a complicated tool to keep."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. 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 Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Citrix NetScaler, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Web Application Firewall. See our Barracuda Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva 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.
Really depends on your requirement, budget and IT resources you have. If you are after an advanced WAF, imperva is the clear winner in my opinion. Comprehensive feature set, quite matured. But you will need proper training and experience to manage and get the best out of it. Mind you they are the only leader in Gartner MQ. But the price tag can be high. If you are looking for another good contender, look at Radware AppWall. Their product is good and the fully managed service offering is ideal for someone who has no expertise in WAF, in day today managing and making sure the rule set is optimized.
BTW Like any security solution, WAF is also as good as how well it is tuned. Specially if you plan to put it inline, make sure you not only consider the product, but a good service partner too.
They're both great products that provides WAF services at the top of their class and hence not better but more suitable in different scenarios. It all comes down to the environment you wish to deploy those into, the scale of the web services which you will be protecting, the ratio of dynamic pages to static ones, the volume of traffic, the location of your customers/end-users and finally the cost (e.g. you may need to load balance over a few Barracudas to accomplish the same throughput provided by Imperva)
Barracuda is deployed in a pinch, but is very clearly a "conformity" WAF. Imperva's is a fulll fledge WAF, very complete, with a lot of granularity and reporting. Imperva's solution requieres a long, costly deployment. Both companies target very different market segments.
Today i would say Barracuda is the better WAF based on that Imperva Dev slowed down over the last two years and the customers give bad feedback on the support, but there is a newer generation of WAF´s in the market that is better than Imperva and Barracuda, both in performance and price, PT application firewall, the only visionary in the GMQ