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."Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
"The ease of deployment of the product is valuable to me."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"The product has fantastic support services."
"The installation is straightforward."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up."
"The most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering."
"We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks."
"We run it with no downtime, because it has good support."
"The stability of the solution is good. I don't think we've experienced bugs, crashes, or glitches."
"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."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."
"The product must provide more features."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover."
"In the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, there should be more affordable options for WAF as a service."
"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 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 usability of the interface could be improved."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"The solution could use more reports."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 30 reviews while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 13 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Easy to deploy, implement, and manage". 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.