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."AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
"The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"
"It provides an ease of policy management."
"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 most valuable features of the solution are it is plug and play, has automated policies, a simple configuration, and is easy to create rules."
"The product's bot protection feature is valuable for our company."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"The solution should identify why it blocks particular websites."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"We should be able to do proper whitelisting."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy."
"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."
"It's a very specific solution that is only requested for a customer's web code or their global IT policy."
"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."
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 51 reviews while Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is ranked 29th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 5 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, 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.