We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Kemp LoadMaster based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."Barracuda Web Application Firewall provides optimized performance, a user-friendly environment, helpful dashboards, and is simple to use."
"It significantly improved our overall web security posture, addressing intrusions and enhancing control over web URLs in our environment."
"We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up."
"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."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"The product has fantastic support services."
"The stability of the product is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It has been functional. We don't have any outages."
"Edge Security Pack is valuable because of the way it separates between critical infrastructure and the public internet."
"The feature that allows us to easily disconnect a server when we need and bring back online is the most valuable. It's a click of a button. This allows us to keep all systems up. We can then run updates, perform reboots whatever we need to one of the servers without taking production down."
"We are most impressed with the ease of use and great support."
"The pricing of the solution is valuable."
"It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs."
"The security features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It has greatly fortified the performance and uptime of our front-door email ingress, simplified and segmented mail routing, and reduced admin overhead for mail issue resolution and troubleshooting."
"They should improve their features, so they easily compare to the competition."
"I would like to see an improved capacity to store logs so that they will be available for a longer time."
"Its interface can be better. It is not very friendly."
"The solution needs to leverage some additional features to a broader scale of software-defined networks."
"I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability."
"It is not stable nor mature."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s scalability needs improvement."
"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."
"It would be very helpful to get all the http/https session logs by default in the log monitor without activating debugging mode like an apache web sever natively does"
"I think there should be more visual instructions on how to configure advanced features."
"If I had to change something it would maybe be to have a little better reporting graphics that show more details in the reporting. It seems to be a little small in the graphic, and I'm not sure if possible but maybe a GUI page that one can use to monitor if any server goes down."
"When we go serverless, we may again have to revisit this because the configuration needs to be changed. With this change, we can run into a lot of other configurations that we haven't got into, which involve additional expenses. It would be challenging to convince management to buy at that price point. It would be a balancing act of justifying that expense and the value, that is, how it is going to save a bit of time and make our platform secure. It can have better configuration ability. A lot of iterations happen when we have multiple servers pointing to the same domain. If we do not orchestrate carefully, it gets into a loop, which takes away the precious time of the user who is trying to subscribe to a service. It takes a little longer time to realize services as well as web pages."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"We experienced a brief period of instability."
"SNMP and/or RESTCONF management, in order to collect many counters, for plotting in a central application need to be improved."
"The ability to see live traffic is not great and can be improved."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. 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 Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Radware Alteon, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Loadbalancer.org.
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.