Microsoft's Azure Virtual WAN connects global branch offices, point-of-sale locations, and sites using Azure and the Microsoft global network. With it the user can plan, configure, and seamlessly deploy new connections.
N/A
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall
Score 9.6 out of 10
N/A
Barracuda CloudGen Firewalls provides a wide range of security and connectivity features, including web filtering, NAC and SSL VPN and other features for remote access, as well as protection as edge devices and IoT security.
N/A
Citrix SD-WAN (discontinued)
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Citrix SD-WAN (formerly Netscaler SD-WAN) was a software-defined WAN solution, featuring WAN optimization. The product is not part of Citrix's plans going forward.
N/A
Pricing
Azure Virtual WAN
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall
Citrix SD-WAN (discontinued)
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Virtual WAN
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall
Citrix SD-WAN (discontinued)
Free Trial
No
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Barracuda offers prospective buyers a build and quote tool on their website.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure Virtual WAN
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall
Citrix SD-WAN (discontinued)
Considered Multiple Products
Azure Virtual WAN
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Azure Virtual WAN
As we were already using Azure as a cloud platform, it was easy setting up a Virtual WAN inside Azure as users/developers and DevOps engineers were familiar with the user interface and functioning as compared to going to some other portal for just the VWAN solution. The …
Our only other vendor in this space is really in a different class, making it difficult to compare them directly head to head. Certainly, Barracuda is more fully-featured and FAR more flexible.
Our Cisco firewall was always difficult to make any changes against. It had no user-friendly GUI interface. We were calling technical support most of the time whenever we needed to make any changes. The Barracuda CloudGen Firewall has a GUI interface which we are looking …
We already use Smoothwall for our main web filtering and felt it would be more robust to have a failover service in case of hardware failure. Pricewise the 2 were comparable and both would have been an upgrade on the no longer supported Microsoft Threat Management gateway. We …
There really is no comparison. Juniper and Sonicwall are the closest competitors, however, in terms of features versus price Barracuda wins every time. Cisco does not allow the ASA to do certain things it should be allowed to do, it is design flaws but they have no intention of …
We used a much alder Cisco ASA router that was chocking our bandwidth and it couldn’t really be compared. It was clunky and horrible at best. Our WatchGuard was overly complicated and difficult to manage and required a version matching thick client installed locally to manage …
What sold us on Barracuda was the ease of use, the price based on number of features, and their excellent support. We cannot say enough good about the support Barracuda provides.
Barracuda, much like the others, has a lot to learn in order to master for quick deployment and management. The biggest separation is the level of customization that is possible. Barracuda support definitely goes above and beyond over the competitors.
We have used SonicWALL and WatchGuard appliances in the past. Barracuda is not only more feature rich, but less expensive. Barracuda's partner program is also second to none. We lost a lot of confidence with SonicWALL as ownership changing hands multiple times in the last few …
After a lengthy vendor selection process we determined that CloudBridge was the best solution—although as always with demos it was difficult to tell if we'd really made the right decision. Since selecting CloudBridge—hough I have had lots of input from colleagues who use other …
Azure Virtual WAN provides single functional interphase for routing, monitoring, connectivity and security operations. The connection of hubs in Azure virtual WAN makes it simple for us to use Microsoft as the pillar of our spoke connectivity. The platform provides us with robust connectivity features that allow for transitive connectivity across different spokes. However, you should always ensure you have understood your total cost of ownership to avoid potential price bombshells.
The firewalls management is made easy through its very good management software. It has a lot of features such as VPN, ATP, IPS, Real-time log views, Active Directory integration, Virus Scanning of traffic / file downloads, High Availability Failover, Qos / Traffic Shaping, and a nice quick glance dashboard.
Any organization with a robust IT support network and with 100+ users, all the way up to international conglomerates with millions of workers. The only situation I can see where it might be harder is if you have a very small business with limited technical know-how. Otherwise, it's honestly the no-brainer choice.
Easy enough to use and configure using the management UI. Reporting from the web filter is a little clunky, and not very user friendly. To be perfectly honest, once it's set up and running, there isn't a lot to do from the day-to-day side of things, which is not a bad thing.
They are very quick to answer the phone and I think I haven’t waited more than 5 minutes in the queue and if you have to hang up they actually call you back when it’s your turn in line. They have a secure tunnel that you can open for them to get into your device and help you with basically anything. It’s pretty magical if you ask me.
As we were already using Azure as a cloud platform, it was easy setting up a Virtual WAN inside Azure as users/developers and DevOps engineers were familiar with the user interface and functioning as compared to going to some other portal for just the VWAN solution. The umbrella of features provided by Azure Virtual WAN made it the right choice for our infrastructure.
We used a much alder Cisco ASA router that was chocking our bandwidth and it couldn’t really be compared. It was clunky and horrible at best. Our WatchGuard was overly complicated and difficult to manage and required a version matching thick client installed locally to manage the firewall. The Barracuda solved a bunch of issues from both of these devices and allows me to really save time and money with its easy to configure the interface and inexpensive yet quality device and interface allow me to feel like I am getting a great value for my security.
After a lengthy vendor selection process we determined that CloudBridge was the best solution—although as always with demos it was difficult to tell if we'd really made the right decision. Since selecting CloudBridge—hough I have had lots of input from colleagues who use other systems—I feel very happy with our choice. The feature set alone is just far superior.
Really neutral given we came from the x series. The move to the x series was a huge positive in terms of time spent managing and the ability to get what needed to be done, well done. The move to the NG was just the next step.
I will say the one thing, in terms of value, that is given is the firewall admin application. This one program saves a ton of time in configuration versus using the web-based configuration. You can only pick one, and for me, it's a no brainer - turn the web-based config off and use the app.