We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."The product has fantastic support services."
"It is stable and the performance is good."
"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."
"It's very simple and predictable, because Barracuda provides a vision of the current state of your application. It gives you an understanding of what is happening on your site and any attempts against you at your source. This is the main value that Web Application Firewall provides our company. These aspects are also the main reason for this documentation process."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"We run it with no downtime, because it has good support."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"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."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall's load balancing feature could be improved."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"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."
"There are some vulnerabilities that are reported across the tools offered by Barracuda for some devices, which need to be taken care of from an improvement perspective."
"I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field, and with the network needs. It is complex."
"It would be better if their updates would be released annually."
"The solution could use more reports."
"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."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"The working speed of the solution needs improvement."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster and Radware Alteon, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF and AWS WAF. See our Barracuda Web Application Firewall vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.
