Barracuda Web Application Firewall Reviews

We are using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall for website content and front-end web application protection.

I have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for a few years.

I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall has been scalable in my experience.

I have used similar solutions to Barracuda Web Application Firewall, such as F5 and there are not any major differences between them.

The installation is straightforward.

We need a minimum of three to four people to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall a seven out of ten.

The most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering.

This solution is simple to manage.

The interface and the dashboards are ok.

The incident reporting needs to be improved.

The local technical support in Poland is not very reliable.

I have been using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall for three years.

This solution is very stable. It is great.

I have only the single web application firewall running on-premises, so I cannot comment on scalability other than to say that I haven't had any problems.

We have 18 people who are being protected by this firewall and we do have plans to increase to approximately 100.

I have been in contact with technical support and while I feel that they are not very reliable here in Poland, they are good enough and I am satisfied with them. The escalation was okay and the troubleshooting was also okay.

The price of this solution is okay.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to find a good partner to assist with the implementation.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for mail protection.

It has helped the organizational function because we do not have an application hosted product. 

It mainly provides good support, and it is a good web application for us.

It is not stable nor mature, though it is not a problem for us.

We have had scalability issues. However, since we do not have that many applications, it is not an issue for us.

Technical support is very good.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

The pricing is less compared to other web applications, which is important to us.

We compared the solution to Imperva because of the support. Support is important to us.

Just do it. We run it with no downtime, because it has good support.

We use it for low balancing phase servers.

It allows us to scale out to multiple phase servers.

It is a great product. We are very pleased with it.

It works exactly by design. It works very well.

There are no stability issues.

There are no scalability issues.

Their technical support is great.

If you are a networking guy, the initial setup is straightforward. If you know nothing about networks, then you can't set it up.

They have competitive pricing.

The updating and signature features are my primary use case for the solution. These features are beneficial to my organization.

I would like this solution to be more detective of the needs of the organization.

I encountered issues with the stability of the product.

I encountered issues with scalability.

I would rate the level of tech support a six out of ten. 

I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field and with the network needs. It is complex.

I have two primary use cases, one for a bank and the other one for an operator. I will speak about the bank case. The environment is very critical: securing an e-banking server and SMS banking.

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.

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.

This product could easily progress to be among the industry leaders. I think they need to improve enterprise level automation. It integrates with a small number of vulnerability scanners, so report results should be imported manually; same for SIEM integration.

Very stable product.

No issues with scalability.

Best support I have ever seen. I have experience with several products and their support. Barracuda support is very special: efficient, quick replies.

There was some complexity because it requires special configuration in addition to some network changes.

Very good price compared to other products. Some products, like Fortinet, give you good performance as well, and their price is probably lower than Barracuda, but you should pay attention to renewal prices and options. The BWAF license includes everything, even cloud control, which requires a license in other products.

OPEX/CAPEX should be looked at closely.

Fortinet, but BWAF was much better.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10 because all requirements from a product are there: very good performance, robust equipment, pentest/vul scan success, very good support. The cost to value ratio is tops.

If you have a limited budget it’s the best, and if you have an open budget why spend more since BWAF can do the job.

We primarily use the solution to secure most data centers. We also use it for mobile apps for malicious automated attacks. 

The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks.

The API security they offer is quite good.

The technical support on offer is very good.

There's multiple application delivery which is impressive.

The deployment isn't very user-friendly.

There are a lot of up and coming competitors in the space, and there's always new technology coming out. The solution needs to make sure that it keeps up with what's going on in the industry to make sure they don't get left behind.

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.

I've been using the solution for almost four and a half years.

The stability of the solution is good. It's pretty reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

The scalability has been fine. It's been quite good for us. We don't have complaints in that regard.

We've always been pretty happy with technical support. We find them helpful and knowledgable.

I also work with Fortinet solutions and I find that sometimes they can be limiting and have their own set of difficulties.

The initial setup is okay, however, it's not particularly user-friendly. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It's more difficult.

We are system integrators. We can handle implementations.

The pricing is okay. Unlike other competitors, you are able to negotiate a little bit, which can help drive down the cost to the company.

We're a solution partner, an integrator. We have partnership-level agreements with the solution.

We have multiple deployment models. We use it on-premises as well as on the cloud using both Amazon Web Services and Azure.

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It would be hard for any product to rate a ten out of ten for me. However, to get a bit of a higher mark, it should offer better documentation and be more user-friendly, particularly where deployment is concerned. I'd still recommend Barracuda, though. It's pretty solid.

We primarily use this solution for firewalls.

The features are all fine. We just fixed some bugs from three months ago, and we're waiting now for a final review. They sent us some features to fix the issue.

The solution could use more reports.

I find the solution very stable.

Technical support has been good. Currently, we don't have any issues.

This is the first solution we are using.

The initial setup was very straightforward. We applied what we needed to use and added different features. Each time we need to use a different feature, we go through configuring it and including more features as necessary. 

I used my own team for the implementation. 

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

I manage and operate the device. We are working with the operation team each time applying manual updates, which is continuous. I'd like to see different information, to help handle issues in an easier way. 

I would rate the solution a 9 out of 10.