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 installation is straightforward."
"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."
"The stability of the solution is good. I don't think we've experienced bugs, crashes, or glitches."
"The product has fantastic support services."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up."
"Our customers value the solution's simplicity."
"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."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The usability of the interface could be improved."
"The policy updates could be improved."
"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."
"If you know nothing about networks, then you can't set it up."
"We get false positives about phishing emails."
"We encountered a few glitches while implementing API security features into the product."
"The solution could use more reports."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"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."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The product's performance should be better."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
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 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 40 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 AWS WAF, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF and Azure Front Door. 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.
