Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS WAF vs Comodo cWatch comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cloudflare Web Application ...
Sponsored
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Comodo cWatch
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
26th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
CDN (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is 5.4%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of AWS WAF is 5.3%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
AWS WAF5.3%
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall5.4%
Comodo cWatch1.1%
Other88.2%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

DB
CTO at PlayNirvana
Advanced security reporting has protected high-traffic betting platforms from constant attacks
I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we have a dedicated IT team for that, and I'm not involved with Cloudflare much anymore. But if I were to compare them to F5, I would like to see more features that F5 offers. F5 has an option to bring the whole infrastructure, the whole WAF and all their packages, Bot Management, and everything else on your infrastructure. You need to install certain services from their side, and then you can choose if you would like requests to hit your servers immediately or if requests need to be proxied through F5 backbone. That would be a nice addition because we have 90% of the traffic as legit traffic coming from whitelisted servers. If it comes from whitelisted servers, I don't need to go every request through the backbone; I could easily just IP whitelist everything. Then I could maybe have Bot Management on my infrastructure that drastically reduces the price of Cloudflare. I would like to see Push CDN more improved in the next release of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. And maybe something similar to Pushpin that Fastly has, which is an option where you can push messages that then can be scaled globally over the network. From our perspective, if we have a listener that listens for stock updates, I would just need to have one processor that pushes those updates to the Cloudflare API, and then Cloudflare would broadcast that message to all listeners. Cloudflare will check the order of the message, and if you, as a customer, are not connected or have some kind of network issue, when you reconnect, you will receive the latest state and missing updates.
Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
Bernardo Murillo - PeerSpot reviewer
Director De Netquatro at Netquatro
Alerts organizations if any malware is detected and removes it quickly
The solution allows me to change my logo. It gives me a white-label portal because I am a partner. OWASP has been the most effective in malware prevention. It can detect if the headers are okay and do FTP scans. We get alerts if we have some malware. It is removed very quickly.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful."
"Caching is the most valuable feature of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall."
"The initial setup process is simple."
"It's pretty convenient and pretty easy to set up and run. And then kind of for static content, it also offers caching."
"The product has improved our security posture by blocking bad actors."
"The solution protects our application, which runs on the HTTP protocol, from DDoS attacks."
"Cloudflare WAF provides protection through rules and functionalities like Cloudflare's SDRAP."
"We extensively use the solution every day. The solution is very stable; we haven’t seen any glitches."
"One of the most valuable features of AWS WAF is its ability to filter web app traffic, allowing us to specify conditions such as IP addresses and HTTP headers."
"Some valuable features of AWS WAF include its seamless integration and ease of orchestration within the AWS platform."
"Rule groups are valuable."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"The automation of blocking for security attacks is valuable, with AWS applying rate limiting."
"The solution is stable."
"Stable and scalable web application firewall. Setting it up is straightforward."
"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"The FIM feature, the information in the new management system, and their support are the most valuable features. The scanned results are quite fast as compared to other platforms compared to scanning timing. It takes about a minute or two minutes. Also, the results of the Comodo scan results are in detail."
 

Cons

"They need to improve their support because getting a response for basic requests took around 48 hours, which is too long."
"The product can improve by having more multitenancy capability, which is currently not available."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should include port forwarding features."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The reporting could be more granular."
"The accuracy of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could be improved by reducing the number of false-negative alerts."
"Support can be challenging at times."
"If they add logs history within the Cloudflare offering, that would be a great benefit."
"The product could be improved by expanding the weightage units of rules."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process."
"On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the geolocation view on the corner."
"We need more support as we go global."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"A small problem is from the support team. Sometimes they are a bit delayed."
"The portal is a little slow."
"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."
"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."
"It is not too pricey."
"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."
"The solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients."
"The solution is expensive."
"What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing? I believe the pricing is not the best, but it's reasonable and acceptable. We also use the McAfee system in parallel. In terms of pricing, its okay - not great, but not bad either. It falls in the middle, which is acceptable. In terms of support licensing, last time, we were searching for a solution, and we considered products from resellers rather than directly from the cloud provider. However, the pricing we encountered was exceptionally high. As a result, we are inclined to select support from the reseller."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven or eight out of ten."
"It's an annual subscription."
"For our infrastructure, we probably pay around $16,000 per month for AWS WAF. Because alternative WAF solutions provide even more features, I think the AWS WAF is a bit pricey"
"The pricing is good and manageable."
"I would rate AWS WAF's pricing a seven out of ten."
"Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge. It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
"It's cheap."
"The price is average."
"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
883,448 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise26
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?
I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we...
What is your primary use case for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?
We are using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's advanced reporting and analytics tools with their Zero Trust, so e...
What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Im...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft...
What do you like most about AWS WAF?
The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
What needs improvement with Comodo cWatch?
The portal is a little slow. I have to wait for it to load all the information. CDN's performance must be improved.
What is your primary use case for Comodo cWatch?
I use the solution to detect vulnerabilities in the site.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Comodo cWatch?
Comodo cWatch’s price is very good compared to Cloudflare’s. The first level of Cloudflare costs us about $20. The ne...
 

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF
AWS Web Application Firewall
cWatch
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk
eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
883,448 professionals have used our research since 2012.