Web application firewalls · November 2026 Edition
Imperva Cloud WAF vs Barracuda WAF
Zero of fourteen models named Imperva Cloud WAF first on the direct prompt; one named Barracuda WAF. Imperva Cloud WAF was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Barracuda WAF by eight and Imperva Cloud WAF carries 46 labels and Barracuda WAF 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category 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 rate20%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels4610A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Imperva Cloud 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 Imperva Cloud WAF · Cloudflare WAF vs Barracuda WAF · Sucuri WAF vs Imperva Cloud 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.
Imperva Cloud WAFFirst choices, of fourteen modelsBarracuda WAF
Direct013 against Imperva Cloud WAF
Paraphrase00
Comparative10
Budget-constrained002 against Imperva Cloud WAF
Scale-constrained10
Negative004 against Imperva Cloud 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 Imperva Cloud 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 | | | |
Imperva Cloud WAF Barracuda WAF first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Imperva Cloud WAF on the left and Barracuda WAF on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Imperva Cloud WAF and Barracuda WAF stood in it.
Barracuda WAF first, Imperva Cloud WAF not the choice
1 of 14 modelsImperva Cloud 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
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.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
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
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
Mistral SmallCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Imperva SecureSphere
DeepSeek V4 FlashCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, Imperva Application Security
Llama 4 MaverickCloudflare WAF
GPT-6 LunaCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF
Muse Glimmer 30BCloudflare WAF alternatives: AWS WAF, Barracuda Web Application Firewall
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.
Imperva Cloud WAF0%#9 of 9Barracuda WAF0%#– of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Imperva Cloud WAF2%#4 of 12Barracuda WAF2%#5 of 12Enterprise
Imperva Cloud WAF leads by nineteen points.
Imperva Cloud WAF19%#2 of 9Barracuda WAF0%#– of 9What the models said about Imperva Cloud WAF
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Imperva SecureSphere due to the documented critical bypass CVEs.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid enterprise solutions (Imperva, Akamai, F5)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Effective for bots/anti-bot but cracked in some 2023 attacks; bypasses with double encoding or anti-bot evasion. High cost and tuning needs.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Top security efficacy scores (100% in recent SecureIQLab testing), strong API security, fully managed options | Companies wanting maximum protection with minimal in-house effort” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Cloudflare and Imperva often score highest in detection rate (70-90%+) with balanced false positives” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
“For enterprise-grade security with data-layer coverage: Imperva WAF offers comprehensive protection and hybrid deployment options.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative 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.