Web application firewalls · November 2026 Edition
AWS WAF vs Barracuda WAF
Zero of fourteen models named AWS WAF first on the direct prompt; one named Barracuda WAF. AWS WAF was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Barracuda WAF by eight and AWS WAF carries 56 labels and Barracuda WAF 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#5A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels5610A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, AWS WAF reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cloudflare WAF was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cloudflare WAF vs AWS WAF · Cloudflare WAF vs Barracuda WAF · Sucuri WAF vs AWS WAF
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the web application firewalls page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AWS WAFFirst choices, of fourteen modelsBarracuda WAF
Direct01
Paraphrase10
Comparative00
Budget-constrained002 against AWS WAF
Scale-constrained00
Negative004 against AWS WAF
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where AWS WAF and Barracuda WAF stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
AWS WAF Barracuda WAF first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, AWS WAF on the left and Barracuda WAF on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where AWS WAF and Barracuda WAF stood in it.
Barracuda WAF first, AWS WAF not the choice
1 of 14 modelsAWS WAF was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Barracuda WAF alternatives: Cloudflare WAF, Microsoft Azure WAF
Neither was the first choice, one was named
12 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, F5 Distributed Cloud WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF, Imperva App Protect
Perplexity SonarCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Grok 4.20Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure WAF, Barracuda WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF
Mistral SmallCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva SecureSphere
DeepSeek V4 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, Imperva Application Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure Front Door, F5 Distributed Cloud WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
Kimi K2Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
GLM 4.7 FlashXCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva Cloud WAF
MiniMax M2.5Cloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Azure WAF, Fastly Next-Gen WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Google Cloud Armor, Imperva Cloud WAF, Radware Cloud WAF Service
GPT-6 LunaCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF
Muse Glimmer 30BCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda Web Application Firewall
Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Llama 4 MaverickCloudflare WAF
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
AWS WAF0%#3 of 9Barracuda WAF0%#– of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
AWS WAF2%#3 of 12Barracuda WAF2%#5 of 12Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
AWS WAF0%#8 of 9Barracuda WAF0%#– of 9What the models said about AWS WAF
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Out-of-the-box cloud WAF rules (e.g., basic default AWS WAF or Azure WAF rules) without fine-tuning either block legitimate traffic or miss application-specific flaws.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“avoid high licensing costs (often $5K–$50K+/year for commercial tools like Cloudflare Enterprise, AWS WAF, or Imperva)” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“Cloudflare or AWS WAF tend to offer the best value with solid protection” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“If your company's infrastructure is already hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS), using AWS WAF is likely the most cost-effective path.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
“Strong integration with CloudFront and other AWS services; cost-efficient if the application is already deeply invested in AWS.” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · alternative
What the models said about Barracuda WAF
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Best for mid-market organizations wanting capable WAF without enterprise complexity” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Straightforward mid-market protection for web applications and APIs” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · alternative
“Best for Mid-Market Simplicity and Balance” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.