We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Barracuda Web Application Firewall 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."As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The most valuable feature is the addition of managed tools that help us create customizable rules. In case we want to block a particular request, we can make use of those rules."
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The interface is good."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"It significantly improved our overall web security posture, addressing intrusions and enhancing control over web URLs in our environment."
"Setup of this solution is straightforward. It's a stable and scalable solution, with good performance and fast technical support."
"It is stable and the performance is good."
"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 most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering."
"If an attack is coming continuously, you can ask the device to block it temporarily for two to three minutes. F5 has not provided us with an option to block certain IPs for some time. Barracuda can help you block someone if the source is from a different IP. You can apply the rule to the device and block it for whatsoever time you want. The solution will unblock the IP after the prescribed time as well."
"Parameter Protection is a valuable feature."
"The area of reporting in the product needs to have a proper format."
"One area that could be improved is the DDoS protection."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"The setup is complicated."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"The incident reporting needs to be improved."
"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."
"It is not stable nor mature."
"They could improve their performance, support, and their upgrades. Their updates used to be good. Their improvements were right on the money but nowadays, the updates are minor."
"If you know nothing about networks, then you can't set it up."
"The solution could use more reports."
"I would like to see an improved capacity to store logs so that they will be available for a longer time."
"I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2. 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 Web Application Firewall writes "Provides strong issue discovery capabilities; enhance the security parameters of web applications and suitable for medium to large enterprises". 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 Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our AWS WAF vs. Barracuda Web Application Firewall 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.