No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs SiteLock comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cloudflare Web Application ...
Sponsored
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SiteLock
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
38th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (46th), CDN (15th), Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is 4.0%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is 0.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SiteLock is 1.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall4.0%
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service0.9%
SiteLock1.7%
Other93.4%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

DB
CTO at PlayNirvana
Advanced security reporting has protected high-traffic betting platforms from constant attacks
I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we have a dedicated IT team for that, and I'm not involved with Cloudflare much anymore. But if I were to compare them to F5, I would like to see more features that F5 offers. F5 has an option to bring the whole infrastructure, the whole WAF and all their packages, Bot Management, and everything else on your infrastructure. You need to install certain services from their side, and then you can choose if you would like requests to hit your servers immediately or if requests need to be proxied through F5 backbone. That would be a nice addition because we have 90% of the traffic as legit traffic coming from whitelisted servers. If it comes from whitelisted servers, I don't need to go every request through the backbone; I could easily just IP whitelist everything. Then I could maybe have Bot Management on my infrastructure that drastically reduces the price of Cloudflare. I would like to see Push CDN more improved in the next release of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. And maybe something similar to Pushpin that Fastly has, which is an option where you can push messages that then can be scaled globally over the network. From our perspective, if we have a listener that listens for stock updates, I would just need to have one processor that pushes those updates to the Cloudflare API, and then Cloudflare would broadcast that message to all listeners. Cloudflare will check the order of the message, and if you, as a customer, are not connected or have some kind of network issue, when you reconnect, you will receive the latest state and missing updates.
Samir Paul - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Practitioner at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Cloud WAF has protected critical web apps and APIs and delivers fast bot and DDoS defense
Regarding improvements for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, the UI and user experience can feel dated. While the interface is functional and centralized, some third-party reviews indicate that the UI can feel outdated, and enhancements are required to provide an executive look that can be aligned with modern and intuitive next-generation competitors. The licensing and cost structure perspective may need clear planning. Barracuda service is customizable but external references note that licensing and cost planning can become complex. Advanced analytics and executive reporting could be better. The platform provides visibility and compliance reporting but organizations looking for a very polished executive dashboard, deep attack visualization, or broader cloud-native security context may find it more focused on WAF operation. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is best suited for app and API protection and is not a full CNAPP platform. It is strong for application layer protection but is not positioned as a full CNAPP covering posture management. Modernizing the UI further, simplifying packaging and licensing clarity, enhancing the executive reporting and risk dashboard, and expanding broader cloud-native integration would be beneficial improvements.
it_user723534 - PeerSpot reviewer
Guitarist at a media company with self employed
It's not easy to get out once you're in
Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information. When you sign on for the paid service, Sitelock: * Hides (makes it difficult to find) that they default the auto-renew (you can't sign up without agreeing to have them automatically bill your credit card every year). * Hides (makes it difficult to find) how to stop auto-renew: * You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses. * You have to hunt their website for a link (in extremely small font) to the page which contains instructions for cancelling. * When you get to that page, turns out it's the 5000+ word "Terms of Service" document, which you have to scour to find a phone number. Then, you have to call and get put on hold (or if you like, they will call you back three days later). Once you finally get through, you have to jump through a lot of security hoops. All of the above, just to cancel the service. Their product may or may not be OK, but be forewarned that with Sitelock, it's not easy to get out once you're in.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"For us, the key feature of Cloudflare is DDoS protection and IP hiding, especially since we are a crypto company."
"The most valuable part of the solution for us overall is exactly that it is a Software-as-a-Service product."
"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."
"Some of the most valuable features of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall include its DNS zone setup and the zero trust policy."
"It's pretty convenient and pretty easy to set up and run. And then kind of for static content, it also offers caching."
"There is a huge signature repository"
"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"This solution does a good job of preventing web application attacks, SQL injections, and cross-site scripting attacks."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has never failed us so far; it is good, and we have not seen any clients complaining that it is not doing its job, failing, freezing, or hanging."
"Legitimate traffic has improved around 30 to 40% after implementing Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service."
"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."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has a positive impact in my organization by strengthening security, improving resilience, and reducing operational overhead."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has impacted my organization positively as it provides peace of mind through DLP features."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has positively impacted our organization by reducing cyber threats like ransomware and phishing by ninety-five percent."
"Overall, Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has been a solid experience, as the platform has done a good job of protecting our application while remaining easy to manage."
"The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"
"Not only did SiteLock's website scanner find the issue with my website, but with SiteLock I was able to implement a security system to prevent future breaches."
"It seems to provide a bit of useful information on website health."
 

Cons

"The rate limiting functionality could be enhanced, as we find it somewhat limited."
"We have noticed some latency when the call goes through the firewall. That could be improved."
"I have experienced some difficulties with Cloudflare's support as a customer based in India."
"Support can be challenging at times."
"The ModSecurity core rules need to be updated."
"The user interface is very simple and straightforward, but users need knowledge about DNS to accomplish tasks."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."
"WAF doesn't directly affect bandwidth costs. It saves costs on protection. However, with the correct setup, it's difficult to determine if it saves costs overall due to the fixed enterprise plan fee."
"I chose an eight out of ten perhaps because the price is very high and not recommended for all organizations."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser."
"I think pricing could be improved regarding Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service."
"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."
"The licensing and cost structure perspective may need clear planning."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service can be improved by adding much more security features on a daily basis."
"The price of their licensing model is a bit steep, and the pricing and SIEM integration sometimes create challenges, and we need to get professional help with those areas."
"Some complex issues take longer to resolve, but overall, we have been satisfied with the support."
"Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."
"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"
"It is not too pricey."
"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."
"The solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients."
"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."
"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."
"What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing? I believe the pricing is not the best, but it's reasonable and acceptable. We also use the McAfee system in parallel. In terms of pricing, its okay - not great, but not bad either. It falls in the middle, which is acceptable. In terms of support licensing, last time, we were searching for a solution, and we considered products from resellers rather than directly from the cloud provider. However, the pricing we encountered was exceptionally high. As a result, we are inclined to select support from the reseller."
"The product is expensive but it offers flexible pricing. It could be affordable."
"I rate the product's price a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high. There are no additional costs to be paid apart from the standard licensing fees attached to the solution."
"It's very difficult for me to give an estimate of the cost. All I know is that we sell the box itself as a service."
"You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Security Firm
7%
Construction Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise6
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?
I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we...
What is your primary use case for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?
We are using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's advanced reporting and analytics tools with their Zero Trust, so e...
What needs improvement with Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
Regarding improvements for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, the UI and user experience can feel dated. While the interface...
What is your primary use case for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
My main use case for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is protecting web applications running on HTTP and HTTPS sockets from...
What advice do you have for others considering Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is best suited for app and API protection and is not a full CNAPP platform. It is strong f...
What do you recommend for a securing Web Application?
That's one of the most critical questions any development team faces! Securing a web application requires a layered a...
 

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF
Barracuda WAF as a Service
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk
Salvation Army
galaxyguitar.com, robertasinc.com, indiarunning.com, comprarenpr.com, idbasolutions.com, newgrip.com
Find out what your peers are saying about Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs. SiteLock and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.