We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Barracuda 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."Their technical support has been quite good."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"The updating and signature features are my primary use case for the solution. These features are beneficial to my organization."
"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."
"Our customers value the solution's simplicity."
"It is stable and the performance is good."
"It allows us to scale out to multiple phase servers."
"There is no one special feature, but the WAF itself is valuable: user-friendly protection against web attacks etc., authentication, reporting, accountability, alerting, and hardened OS."
"Some of the most valuable features are the ease of deployment, the Barracuda support, the easy-to-use console, and the granularity of the reports."
"The installation is straightforward."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"We need more support as we go global."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"We get false positives about phishing emails."
"I think the main area for improvement in this product is learning it, as can be seen when comparing it to the F5 web application firewall. F5 has a very powerful learning phase when you start using your web application firewall against your site. Barracuda has something like this, but not with the same functionality from my point of view."
"I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s scalability needs improvement."
"I would like to see an improved capacity to store logs so that they will be available for a longer time."
"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 policy updates could be improved."
"This product could easily progress to be among the industry leaders. I think they need to improve enterprise level automation. It integrates with a small number of vulnerability scanners, so report results should be imported manually; same for SIEM integration."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 51 reviews while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, 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". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. Barracuda 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.