We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and HAProxy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, Amazon and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."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."
"Setup of this solution is straightforward. It's a stable and scalable solution, with good performance and fast technical support."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"The most valuable feature is the rule set."
"Has a good dashboard."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"Some of the most valuable features are the ease of deployment, the Barracuda support, the easy-to-use console, and the granularity of the reports."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall provides optimized performance, a user-friendly environment, helpful dashboards, and is simple to use."
"The most valuable feature of HAProxy is that its open source."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"The solution is user-friendly and efficient."
"It is scalable."
"The most valuable thing for me is TCP/IP Layer 4 stuff you can do with HAProxy. You can go down to the protocol level and make decisions on something."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"Load balancing is valuable, and we are also using the WAF feature."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"I have issues with the load balancing of the solution which is slow. The connection pooling in Barracuda also doesn't work. There is an issue when someone needs access to a site quickly. The issue is with HTTPS services. I am not sure if they have changed all these in the solution’s latest version."
"Barracuda Web Application Firewall's load balancing feature could be improved."
"An area for improvement in Barracuda Web Application Firewall is attack identification. Other banks identified attacks and tracked logs that the solution wasn't able to identify because of its ready-made rules pre-deployed by the vendor. My organization raised this issue with the technical support team. Another area to improve in Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its service desk. The team resorted to stonewalling because they couldn't accept that a feature was missing in the solution, and it was only after a lot of drilling down that the service desk team accepted that, and would be adding that feature in the future. My organization had to submit a report to the Reserve Bank of India with information on the logs identified and the attacks that happened, and that there was a failure on the part of the Barracuda Web Application Firewall. The Reserve Bank of India conducts a tri-monthly cyber risk audit in all Indian banks. Even smaller banks identified and caught attacks that my organization wasn't able to do, so I was looking into other solutions that competitor banks could be using because Barracuda Web Application Firewall failed to identify some of the attacks."
"I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability."
"It would be better if their updates would be released annually."
"While the UI is good, it can get a little bit complicated."
"There are issues when upgrading firewalls and we experience different issues across customers."
"I would like to see better search handling, and a user interface, with a complete functional graphical unit"
"Sometimes it's challenging to get through the log, and you need a log to understand what is going on. It isn't easy to map the logging with the documentation, and every time I read the log, I have to pull out the documentation to understand what I'm reading."
"The reconfigurability in terms of the tooling could be improved and maybe an editor plugin can be added."
"While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source."
"The GUI should be more responsive and show the detailed output of logs."
"HAProxy could improve by making the dashboards easier to use, and better reports and administration tickets."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 14 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 5th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 12 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 7.8, while HAProxy is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Barracuda Web Application Firewall writes "Reliable and stable with a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "You can go down to the protocol level and make decisions on something". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF and Imperva DDoS, whereas HAProxy is most compared with NGINX Plus, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Kemp LoadMaster, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Fortinet FortiADC.
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.
