Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs Sucuri comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
31st
Average Rating
7.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
22nd
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection (18th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 0.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Hadar Eshel - PeerSpot reviewer
Feb 23, 2024
Easy to install platform with valuable policy management features
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.…
David Shlingbaum - PeerSpot reviewer
May 3, 2023
Simple solution and good WAF
I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server. We wanted to have improved security for our not-so-new web server and also for newer technologies. If they can block using geolocation, it can analyze the URLs, and you can basically define folders…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It provides an ease of policy management."
"The product's bot protection feature is valuable for our company."
"The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"
"The most valuable features of the solution are it is plug and play, has automated policies, a simple configuration, and is easy to create rules."
"I like its ability to identify known attacks, including DDOS attacks. It's valuable because software must be able to stop known attacks. Application attacks are evolving all the time. When it comes to software-as-a-service, we need to have software that knows about all the latest attacks. It should also protect against major unknown attacks."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
 

Cons

"The solution can improve by bundling Security Operation Center (SOC) with the WAF-as-a-Service, it would provide a lot more value to customers."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"One significant area for improvement in Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service lies in its market positioning and pricing strategy."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser. The URL also exposed the user name and the hashed password. When I log into my Barracuda WAF user portal, I could see the username and the hashed password on the URL itself. So, it is not very secure, and it is important to take that off."
"It's a very specific solution that is only requested for a customer's web code or their global IT policy."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is expensive but it offers flexible pricing. It could be affordable."
"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."
"It's very difficult for me to give an estimate of the cost. All I know is that we sell the box itself as a service."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Educational Organization
45%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Real Estate/Law Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
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 hinder...
What is your primary use case for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
We use the product for securing email systems, protecting websites, and safeguarding web-based applications and portals.
What do you like most about Sucuri?
The initial setup was very easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sucuri?
The pricing is very reasonable. Sucuri offer other features as an add-on, such as backup, but these have an additional cost. We host the sites ourselves, so I don't take it because it was redundant.
What needs improvement with Sucuri?
The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection. In future releases, perhaps Sucuri could...
 

Also Known As

Barracuda WAF as a Service
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Salvation Army
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.