AWS WAF vs Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Logo
17,782 views|13,844 comparisons
82% willing to recommend
Barracuda Networks Logo
659 views|453 comparisons
75% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service 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.
To learn more, read our detailed AWS WAF vs. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.""The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,""The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.""The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications.""Rule groups are valuable.""As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good.""Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward.""This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."

More AWS WAF Pros →

"The most valuable features of the solution are it is plug and play, has automated policies, a simple configuration, and is easy to create rules.""I like its ability to identify known attacks, including DDOS attacks. It's valuable because software must be able to stop known attacks. Application attacks are evolving all the time. When it comes to software-as-a-service, we need to have software that knows about all the latest attacks. It should also protect against major unknown attacks.""The product's bot protection feature is valuable for our company.""It provides an ease of policy management.""The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"

More Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service Pros →

Cons
"The solution can improve its price.""It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation.""The cost must be reduced.""AWS WAF could improve by making the overall management easier. Many people that have started working with AWS WAF do not have an easy time. They should make it easy to use.""I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services.""Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement.""In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler.""We need more support as we go global."

More AWS WAF Cons →

"It's a very specific solution that is only requested for a customer's web code or their global IT policy.""The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.""We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser. The URL also exposed the user name and the hashed password. When I log into my Barracuda WAF user portal, I could see the username and the hashed password on the URL itself. So, it is not very secure, and it is important to take that off.""One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy.""The solution can improve by bundling Security Operation Center (SOC) with the WAF-as-a-Service, it would provide a lot more value to customers."

More Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It's an annual subscription."
  • "There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
  • "There are different scale options available for WAF."
  • "AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
  • "It has a variable pricing scheme."
  • "We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
  • "It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
  • "The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
  • More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It's very difficult for me to give an estimate of the cost. All I know is that we sell the box itself as a service."
  • "I rate the product's price a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high. There are no additional costs to be paid apart from the standard licensing fees attached to the solution."
  • "The product is expensive but it offers flexible pricing. It could be affordable."
  • More Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
    768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Hi Varun I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF… more »
    Top Answer:Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for… more »
    Top Answer:One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy. Additionally, it could operate in a local data center. This limitation hinders… more »
    Top Answer:We use the product for securing email systems, protecting websites, and safeguarding web-based applications and portals.
    Ranking
    Views
    17,782
    Comparisons
    13,844
    Reviews
    30
    Average Words per Review
    407
    Rating
    8.5
    Views
    659
    Comparisons
    453
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    837
    Rating
    6.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    AWS Web Application Firewall
    Barracuda WAF as a Service
    Learn More
    Overview

    AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) is a firewall security system that monitors incoming and outgoing traffic for applications and websites based on your pre-defined web security rules. AWS WAF defends applications and websites from common Web attacks that could otherwise damage application performance and availability and compromise security.

    You can create rules in AWS WAF that can include blocking specific HTTP headers, IP addresses, and URI strings. These rules prevent common web exploits, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. Once defined, new rules are deployed within seconds, and can easily be tracked so you can monitor their effectiveness via real-time insights. These saved metrics include URIs, IP addresses, and geo locations for each request.

    AWS WAF Features

    Some of the solution's top features include:

    • Web traffic filtering: Get an extra layer of security by creating a centralized set of rules, easily deployable across multiple websites. These rules filter out web traffic based on conditions like HTTP headers, URIs, and IP addresses. This is very helpful for protection against exploits such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting as well as attacks from third-party applications.
    • Bot control: Malicious bot traffic can consume excessive resources and cause downtime. Gain visibility and control over bot traffic with a managed rule group. You can easily block harmful bots, such as scrapers and crawlers, and you can allow common bots, like search engines and status monitors.
    • Fraud prevention: Effectively defend your application against bot attacks by monitoring your application’s login page with a managed rule group that prevents hackers from accessing user accounts using compromised credentials. The managed rule group helps protect against credential stuffing attacks, brute-force login attempts, and other harmful login activities.
    • API for AWS WAF Management: Automatically create and maintain rules and integrate them into your development process.
    • Metrics for real-time visibility: Receive real-time metrics and captures of raw requests with details about geo-locations, IP addresses, URIs, user agents, and referrers. Integrate seamlessly with Amazon CloudWatch to set up custom alarms when events or attacks occur. These metrics provide valuable data intelligence that can be used to create new rules that significantly improve your application protections.
    • Firewall management: AWS Firewall Manager automatically scans and notifies the security team when there is a policy violation, so they can swiftly take action. When new resources are created, your security team can guarantee that they comply with your organization’s security rules.

    Reviews from Real Users

    AWS WAF stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its user-friendly interface and its integration capabilities.

    Kavin K., a security analyst at M2P Fintech, writes, “I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through.”

    Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is a comprehensive solution designed to provide application security, DDoS protection, SSL authentication, protocol support, and application delivery. It is a plug-and-play solution with automated policies, simple configuration, and easy rule creation. 

    The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system based on email protection with cloud security. It is also a web application firewall and covers major protection and threat management functions. With Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, customers can ensure the security of their web code and comply with global IT policies.

    Sample Customers
    eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
    Salvation Army
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Media Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Government11%
    Comms Service Provider11%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business37%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise64%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise21%
    Large Enterprise55%
    Buyer's Guide
    AWS WAF vs. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is ranked 29th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 5 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is rated 7.2. 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 WAF-as-a-Service writes "Easy to install platform with valuable policy management features ". 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 WAF-as-a-Service is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. See our AWS WAF vs. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service 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.