We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and NGINX App Protect 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."The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"Its recommendation about the probabilities on the website is great. It also has free probability managers for the website, which is really helpful. The protection engine, signature-based protection behavior, and analysis features are also great. It also has an ATP module for sandbox scanning and behavior analysis for file uploads."
"We run it with no downtime, because it has good support."
"The most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering."
"We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks."
"Has a good dashboard."
"Parameter Protection is a valuable feature."
"The stability of the product is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"I tested specific features and evaluated the solution against the Web Application Firewall. I conducted research to test different detection percentages. I did not use it directly for protection but for evaluation purposes."
"It is a stable solution."
"The policies are flexible based on the technologies you use."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"NGINX App Protect is stable."
"It is a very good tool for load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its open source."
"It has the best documentation features."
"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."
"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 better controlling of the traffic."
"There are issues when upgrading firewalls and we experience different issues across customers."
"This product could easily progress to be among the industry leaders. I think they need to improve enterprise level automation. It integrates with a small number of vulnerability scanners, so report results should be imported manually; same for SIEM integration."
"One of Barracuda's limitations is its user interface. The GUI for configuration is not intuitive and has remained largely unchanged for the past 10 to 12 years."
"I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field, and with the network needs. It is complex."
"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."
"As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment."
"The product's user interface is an area with shortcomings as it can be quite confusing for users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Right now, the tool doesn't provide an option revolving around update feeds, specifically the signature update option in the UI."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"NGINX App Protect could improve security."
"They could provide a better user interface."
"Its technical support could be better."
"The dashboard could provide a more comprehensive view of the status of the connections."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 19 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.2. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX App Protect writes "Capable of complete automation but is costly ". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb and Noname Security. See our Barracuda Web Application Firewall vs. NGINX App Protect 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.