We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall 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."It allows us to scale out to multiple phase servers."
"The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks."
"This product gives us visibility into what is going on in two servers, including connections and sessions, real-time alerts, very good reporting, and KPIs. It makes managing security of a critical server very easy, with a friendly GUI."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"We use Barracuda to protect the application. That's the main feature we use it for."
"One of the strongest points is its robust issue discovery capabilities. Barracuda invests significant efforts in identifying and resolving issues. They have multiple products that work in tandem to perform these checks, which is beneficial because it automates security updates. This is the primary reason I recommend it to my customers."
"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."
"You don't need help from Barracuda to help with the deployment. The deployment is easy."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"The solution can scale."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis."
"It has fewer false positives"
"Imperva monitors all traffic, even customer access, to the web application. Then, Imperva uses features like signatures to identify attacks like cross-site scripting or SQL injection."
"We've had some blocks of the application and some false positives."
"I would like to see an improved capacity to store logs so that they will be available for a longer time."
"The documentation is lacking. It's not like what you'd get if you were using Juniper or Cisco. They need to expand on it and make it more useful."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"I would like to see better controlling of the traffic."
"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."
"The solution could use more reports."
"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."
"In the past, I have bugs on the WAF. I've contacted Imperva about them. Future releases should be less buggy."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"Sometimes, support tickets don't get addressed quickly."
"One potential improvement for Imperva is enhancing its alert system."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. 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 Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Citrix NetScaler, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai App and API Protector. See our Barracuda Web Application Firewall vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
Really depends on your requirement, budget and IT resources you have. If you are after an advanced WAF, imperva is the clear winner in my opinion. Comprehensive feature set, quite matured. But you will need proper training and experience to manage and get the best out of it. Mind you they are the only leader in Gartner MQ. But the price tag can be high. If you are looking for another good contender, look at Radware AppWall. Their product is good and the fully managed service offering is ideal for someone who has no expertise in WAF, in day today managing and making sure the rule set is optimized.
BTW Like any security solution, WAF is also as good as how well it is tuned. Specially if you plan to put it inline, make sure you not only consider the product, but a good service partner too.
They're both great products that provides WAF services at the top of their class and hence not better but more suitable in different scenarios. It all comes down to the environment you wish to deploy those into, the scale of the web services which you will be protecting, the ratio of dynamic pages to static ones, the volume of traffic, the location of your customers/end-users and finally the cost (e.g. you may need to load balance over a few Barracudas to accomplish the same throughput provided by Imperva)
Barracuda is deployed in a pinch, but is very clearly a "conformity" WAF. Imperva's is a fulll fledge WAF, very complete, with a lot of granularity and reporting. Imperva's solution requieres a long, costly deployment. Both companies target very different market segments.
Today i would say Barracuda is the better WAF based on that Imperva Dev slowed down over the last two years and the customers give bad feedback on the support, but there is a newer generation of WAF´s in the market that is better than Imperva and Barracuda, both in performance and price, PT application firewall, the only visionary in the GMQ