Barracuda Web Security Gateway vs ContentProtect

• Control of domains/sites allowed for access. We can be sure our users are not using their online activity to accidentally, or intentionally, to go to malicious, threatening, intolerance, hate, or pornography.
• Reporting is easy and informative. Reports allow you to summarize for specific time periods, and then drill down to see time spent, or bandwidth used.
• Blocking and/or allowing instantly for a specific user or groups is easily done and takes effect immediately.

Read full review

• The client is relatively light weight and doesn't impact other applications.
• The client isn't easily bypassed, so the user's are kept under restrictions.
• The configuration is relatively simple and easy to deploy.

Read full review

• More configuration in the reporting options would be helpful; there are a number of reports available to run, however more options for customisation would be useful.
• The ability to add a list of domains/URL patterns to whitelist or block would be beneficial; while you can do a bulk edit, you can't just copy and paste the URLs in, you have to modify the line of text so that it matches the format, and adds it to the list. The ability to just import a list of addresses would be a huge time saver.

Read full review

• Our primary policy is a restricted list, so that does as advertised. We had one location that had blocks based on categories (adult, illegal, etc). We continually had issues with sites getting completely blocked due to unrelated content. For example, Yahoo had a beer ad on the page, alcohol was blocked, so Yahoo became blocked for the period of time that ad was displayed. We had this happen multiple times and eventually switched to a different solution at that location.
• I've had issues with their cloud portal not working. I don't have to edit our configuration often, but on numerous occasions, i was unable to get the configuration page to load after login, sometimes for days. The platform just wasn't stable when I needed it to be.
• We run many of our remote rooms as frozen (after logoff they reset to the image). This works fine most times, but when content protect needs a configuration change pushed down, someone needs to go 'thaw' the computers, download the updated configuration, and re-'freeze' the computer. It would be nice if that information was just dynamic from the cloud and didn't need to be pulled down.
• The categorization used for policies is very limited and not flexible or easily customizable.
• I could never get the usage reporting to work.

Read full review

• I came into the company with Barracuda already implemented so it worked well for a number of years.
• Their support contract was a bit pricey.
• For what the company paid for the system, Barracuda was worth the money over the 10 years it was implemented.

Read full review

• It was a relatively inexpensive and simple solution when we needed one relatively quickly, which is a positive. The inexpensive price has kept it in the environment.
• The lack of reliable reporting has lead to the need for an alternate monitoring solution in a few cases. Network level reporting was used, which is a separate expense, configuration.
• Time has been lost waiting on the portal and then troubleshooting support tickets when sites that shouldn't have been blocked have been blocked. It has resulted in changes for locations that needed dynamic category filtering as opposed to a finite list.
• The blocking of sites based on add traffic or sub-sites (rather than just blocking that content like other solutions) has resulted in downtime during classes when those sites were listed in the lesson plan and had previously worked.

Read full review