We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Citrix NetScaler based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."Has a good dashboard."
"We use Barracuda to protect the application. That's the main feature we use it for."
"We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks."
"The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable."
"Parameter Protection is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the rule set."
"The installation is straightforward."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"The NetScaler appliance has provided a lot of customers with greater high availability for their enterprise applications within a single site and across multiple locations."
"Its flexibility, agility, and robustness are the most valuable. Its management and implementation are also quite easy."
"I can turn on features without actually owning a license. I can test them out, I can use them for a while, and then I can be licensed up. That's awesome. I don't have to have a license immediately before I can start to deploy things rapidly, rapid deployment is a plus."
"It is a complete solution for those looking for an all-in-one."
"Provides resiliency for applications that reside on servers, as well as connectivity to remote applications."
"The web application firewalling component is a powerful feature."
"HTTP analysis and action. We have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions. Some of these custom apps are external and, via the content switching, we can use one IP and leverage various back-end web app servers."
"The most valuable feature for us is the application firewalling in Citrix NetScaler, ensuring only valid traffic enters our environment."
"The reporting aspect of the solution needs improvement. I don't find that it's very good. They could do some work on it to make it much better. It's not that the reporting isn't secure. It's just that I would prefer to store my reports for an extended period of time. Right now, that's not possible and I'd prefer it if that could change. I also would say that the reports themselves are expensive."
"We encountered a few glitches while implementing API security features into the product."
"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."
"They could improve their performance, support, and their upgrades. Their updates used to be good. Their improvements were right on the money but nowadays, the updates are minor."
"I think the main area for improvement in this product is learning it, as can be seen when comparing it to the F5 web application firewall. F5 has a very powerful learning phase when you start using your web application firewall against your site. Barracuda has something like this, but not with the same functionality from my point of view."
"They should improve their features, so they easily compare to the competition."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"There are some vulnerabilities that are reported across the tools offered by Barracuda for some devices, which need to be taken care of from an improvement perspective."
"The solution is a bit more expensive than some of the available solutions in this region. One solution in particular that I noticed was cheaper was Kemp."
"We would like the licensing model for this product to be improved, as it isn't currently very transparent. There isn't a standard package available, and each extra feature creates an additional cost."
"The licensing model and technical support of the solution could be improved."
"The main areas for improvement would be around documentation and support. If a feature can be used in two or three ways, show that feature being used in all of those ways. Documentation seems to only cover the primary use case and leaves you to either run through trial and error or consult the user community. In terms of support, I have never actually had them solve any of my issues. I have always solved them myself and then provided the resolution to support."
"The solution can improve their support and send tickets directly to a Citrix ADC engineer in order to avoid having to escalate each support call."
"Should offer more flexible cost-effective licensing for small to medium sized organizations."
"I think there is always room for improvement in this type of solutions. For example, I think the GUI should be easy to understand."
"It was challenging explaining to customers that it's no longer NetScaler but ADC, and now it's not just ADC but also the rebranding from NetScaler."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 15th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4. 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 Citrix NetScaler writes "Optimizing application delivery and ensuring robust network performance with its excellent stability and comprehensive load-balancing capabilities". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Azure Front Door, whereas Citrix NetScaler is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy and Barracuda Load Balancer ADC.
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.