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

AWS WAF vs Comodo cWatch comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Comodo cWatch
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
26th
Average Rating
9.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
CDN (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 13.7%, down from 15.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kesharwani - PeerSpot reviewer
A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks
Integrating AWS WAF with other AWS services in our infrastructure is fairly easy. There are different tools through which we can do it. AWS WAF is a fairly easy solution. Users need to build a few rules by themselves based on the vulnerability attack within the application. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Bernardo Murillo - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"The web solution effectively protects from vulnerabilities and cyber attacks."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"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

"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services."
"We need more support as we go global."
"The solution could be more reliable."
"We must monitor and clean up the WAF manually."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"The portal is a little slow."
"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."
"A small problem is from the support team. Sometimes they are a bit delayed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"AWS WAF has reasonable pricing."
"The solution is affordable."
"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."
"There are different scale options available for WAF."
"We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
"AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
"It's an annual subscription."
"For Kubernetes microservices, AWS is more expensive compared to OCI. AWS costs approximately 70 cents per hour, while OCI is 50% cheaper."
"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.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Wholesaler/Distributor
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF is t...
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 Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
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 next level costs $100. Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, cost...
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
cWatch
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.