Barracuda CloudGen WAF for AWS - PAYG

We use the product for securing email systems, protecting websites, and safeguarding web-based applications and portals.

One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy. Additionally, it could operate in a local data center. This limitation hinders its adoption in regions with strict data regulations.

We have been using Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service for three years.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight and a half out of ten.

I rate the platform’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support services could be faster and more professional.

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is easy to install and maintain. However, it is granular and might be complicated for multiple applications. The deployment time depends on the specific application and the complexity of the number of domains.

The product is expensive but it offers flexible pricing. It could be affordable.

Barracuda utilizes Azure CDN instead of having its proprietary CDN, which may be considered a limitation when compared to competitors like Imperva's Incapsula. However, we decided to go for Barracuda for better pricing and the simplicity of basic functionality, especially for medium-sized clients who may prioritize these aspects over advanced features.

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service excels in threat detection and mitigation, with features including robust bot mitigation in combination with Microsoft CDN, and the effectiveness of its Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) service. It provides an ease of policy management.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in our company to protect our website.

The product has improved my organization due to the protection it offers to our company's website.

The product's bot protection feature is valuable for our company. I cannot comment on anything else in the product that is valuable to our company since all its other features are common. With the product, our company doesn't face any issues. Our company's website had a contact form. Normally, my company used to face issues with bots that filled out the form and sent a masked email address to our information mailbox, which was one of our concerns because we were not getting genuine inquiries from our forms, but after the implementation of the product, we were okay.

My company had faced some downtime or an outage twice with Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service due to backend problems. The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I don't know much about what additional features are required in the product's future releases since I think it has almost all users. One feature I want in the solution stems from the fact that there are almost 17 applications protected in our company with the help of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service. If I need to block one IP address for all 17 applications together, it is not possible, and I need to block the IP address on each application separately, making it a time-consuming process. It would be great if the product allows users to block an IP address for all the applications in an environment in one go rather than having to block the IP address separately for each application.

I have been using Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service for almost two years. My company is an end user of the solution.

My company had faced a downtime of four to five hours with the solution, after which we again faced a downtime of around three hours with the product because of the tool's backend issues. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a four out of ten.

The product's scalability is fine since my company initially had ten licenses for the product, and we could scale up to twenty. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

It doesn't matter how many users use the product in our company since the solution is mainly meant to protect our company's 17 applications.

The solution's technical support is very good. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup phase a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup phase, and ten is an easy setup process. The product's initial setup phase was not a nice process. As I was not an expert with the product during its setup phase, some time was required to ensure coordination between our company's website and product vendor.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The product's deployment process took almost three months to complete.

There is a need to deploy the DNS server addresses to Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, and in each website, 301 and redirection should be configured, after which all the other policies are to be enabled manually for each application. In our company, we have 17 applications, and we need to manually enable the policies for each application separately.

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.

Against Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, I think my company had tried two products, one of which was Imperva, but I don't remember the name of the Other product. My company chose Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service over Imperva since the latter was too costly compared to the former solution.

I don't know what to say about the product after seeing the solution have a downtime twice in a span of two months. I cannot recommend the product to others.

If I consider the solution's downtime, because of which it is not possible for the product to offer its features to support backend processes, I rate the overall product a six out of ten.