We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Loadbalancer.org 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)."We run it with no downtime, because it has good support."
"The product has fantastic support services."
"It's very simple and predictable, because Barracuda provides a vision of the current state of your application. It gives you an understanding of what is happening on your site and any attempts against you at your source. This is the main value that Web Application Firewall provides our company. These aspects are also the main reason for this documentation process."
"What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution."
"The installation is straightforward."
"Even when we were upgrading to a new OS, we didn't have any difficulties with the product. The stability is good."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic content filtering."
"The most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"For now, it's stable."
"It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The platform's pricing needs improvement."
"The policy updates could be improved."
"I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover."
"The usability of the interface could be improved."
"I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field, and with the network needs. It is complex."
"The GUI needs to be improved because it sometimes hangs and needs to be restarted."
"They should improve their features, so they easily compare to the competition."
"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."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version."
"They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
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 Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Kemp LoadMaster.
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.