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

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs Sucuri comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

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)
6th
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)
25th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
34th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (26th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (24th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is 4.5%, down from 7.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 1.5%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall4.5%
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service1.0%
Sucuri1.5%
Other93.0%
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.
JS
Hardware Engineer at Ministry of Defense
A cost-effective choice for website security and informative support with issues related to CDN quality
One area where they could improve is in providing real-time support options because now you need to open a support ticket and wait for their response. It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance. I have found their Content Delivery Network service to be lacking in quality, and it could certainly be enhanced to provide better performance. I would also like to see improvements in the deployment process, as it currently takes more time than desirable. Another significant concern is that their service when your website is down, turns it into a static site. This means that if customers try to visit your site during downtime, they will see old content from the static site, which is not ideal. The CDN and tracking services are areas that need improvement, as well as addressing their bandwidth limitations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"There is a huge signature repository"
"Cloudflare is cheaper compared to Azure WAF, which I have considered before."
"The stability of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall deserves a perfect 10 out of 10."
"The rate limiting features and customizations in terms of URL match and applying policies are valuable to me."
"We like that there's load balancing, firewall capabilities, DDoS protection, et cetera, all covered by Cloudflare."
"The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration."
"Very glad the WAF rulesets works out of box, and requires very little tuning or maintenance."
"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has impacted my organization positively with fast deployment and simple onboarding."
"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 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."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has positively impacted our organization by reducing cyber threats like ransomware and phishing by ninety-five percent."
"The solution covers a lot of major protection or threat management functions in the feature itself."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has a positive impact in my organization by strengthening security, improving resilience, and reducing operational overhead."
"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."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has impacted my organization positively as it provides peace of mind through DLP features."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"Rather than locate some things manually, the Sucuri plugin scans and allows us to pinpoint whether there is malware or some problem in the site."
"For people who own a personal website, this solution is worth trying out since their security solution is somewhat full-fledged."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
 

Cons

"Support can be challenging at times."
"The solution's learning curve can still be further reduced"
"Cloudflare should update the version of the ModSecurity core rule set that they run on."
"We don't even use Cloudflare Bot Management because it's too expensive; you need to pay per request, and it's much cheaper to get one or two additional machines."
"The learning curve was steep initially."
"The reporting could be improved if it were more granular."
"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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."
"One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy."
"Some complex issues take longer to resolve, but overall, we have been satisfied with the support."
"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."
"I think Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service can still do better on the DLP side."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"
"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."
"The solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients."
"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."
"Cloudflare offers different types of subscriptions for businesses, enterprises, and personal users, and the pricing is negotiable."
"The solution is expensive."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."
"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."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
900,838 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%
Computer Software Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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 Business12
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF
Barracuda WAF as a Service
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk
Salvation Army
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,838 professionals have used our research since 2012.