I have used F5 and find it to be more stable.

I'm also aware of F5 and Imperva, and they both have very good feature sets.

I've never worked with F5, however, I've heard F5 has more features than Barracuda WAF.

Some customers are using AWS WAF and Azure WAF.

Previously with a different vendor, we used many solutions. As a result, I have experience with many different solutions such as WatchGuard, Cisco, Cisco LEAP, Cisco Tools, SELFAS, and Fortinet.

I have used Fortinet before. It has efficient AI capabilities compared to Barracuda.

I have previous experience using Cisco.

We actually switched to Barracuda because it's cheaper than F5. This might not be the case for others, because there are several solutions that are cloud based. It is a service of a service and in some cases this kind of product would be cheaper than Barracuda. It depends on the implementation scheme and business needs. In some cases, Barracuda is cheaper, in some cases Barracuda is more expensive. In our case it was cheaper.

We also use Imperva. We use both solutions at once.

We did use a different solution before switching to Barracuda. Typically, we run a POC first before moving onto anything new, which is what happened in this case.

I have used similar solutions to Barracuda Web Application Firewall, such as F5 and there are not any major differences between them.

We did not previously use another solution.

I also work with Fortinet solutions and I find that sometimes they can be limiting and have their own set of difficulties.

This is the first solution we are using.

We have primarily been working with Barracuda Web Application Firewall, as we have not yet done much testing of other products.