Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Comodo cWatch comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and Xcitium are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.9, while Xcitium is ranked #26 with an average rating of 9.0. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 2.6% mindshare in WAF, compared to Xcitium’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Xcitium users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Comodo cWatch and Check Point CloudGuard WAF are web application security solutions. Check Point CloudGuard WAF appears to have an advantage due to its comprehensive features, making it a preferred choice for those prioritizing advanced security.

Features: Comodo cWatch includes real-time traffic monitoring, automatic threat detection, and customizable security rule sets. Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers advanced threat prevention, automated policy creation, and robust integration capabilities, with its threat prevention tools noted for their superiority.

Room for Improvement: Comodo cWatch could benefit from enhanced integration capabilities, improved threat intelligence, and more robust customization options. Check Point CloudGuard WAF might improve by refining user interface simplicity, reducing resource consumption, and enhancing scalability in various environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Comodo cWatch provides a streamlined deployment process with readily accessible customer service for setup assistance. Check Point CloudGuard WAF, on the other hand, focuses on seamless integration with existing infrastructures and offers customer service adept at handling complex configurations.

Pricing and ROI: Comodo cWatch is a cost-effective solution with a favorable ROI, attractive to smaller enterprises. In contrast, Check Point CloudGuard WAF is priced higher but offers an ROI that justifies its investment with extensive security features, positioning Comodo as more budget-friendly and Check Point as providing significant returns for its expansive capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,696 peers since 2012

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 ...

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 Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 2.6%, up from 1.1% 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) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall	5.4%
Check Point CloudGuard WAF	2.6%
Comodo cWatch	1.1%
Other	90.9%

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

Featured Reviews

Dean Barisic

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.

Read full review

KrishnakumarM

CISO at Pink Solutions

Cloud security has strengthened risk posture and improved advanced threat visibility

There are some API gateway and API securities I mentioned. If these are incorporated with AI-related features, particularly those seven key vulnerabilities I mentioned—token theft and tool poisoning—that would be beneficial. AI-related features are not included yet in Check Point CloudGuard WAF. However, they are present in FortiGate. That is the advantage of FortiGate now. FortiGate is stopping all AI-related vulnerabilities now. FortiGate has this capability. It is unfortunate that even Palo Alto also lacks one or two of these features. Check Point Quantum is very good, without a doubt. However, their capabilities are not in comparison with Palo Alto. There are some features, but there are some gaps in comparison with Palo Alto.

Read full review

Bernardo Murillo

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's pretty convenient and pretty easy to set up and run. And then kind of for static content, it also offers caching."

"The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration."

"The product has improved our security posture by blocking bad actors."

"Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful."

"The security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."

"Cloudflare WAF provides protection through rules and functionalities like Cloudflare's SDRAP."

"The impact of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's integration with existing web technologies on our site's performance and security measures is quite great, actually."

"There is a huge signature repository"

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pros

"The solution's strongest point is that you can connect everything to it, giving you a full view of what's connected."

"I have thousands of exposed websites and APIs. Being able to control what is happening and try to prevent any attack is the best feature."

"From a security perspective, it is quite good."

"We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides great visibility and flexibility to use multiple FQDNs in a single load balancer."

"Its main value and what we liked the most is its powerful AI."

"The best feature of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is advanced threat prevention integrated with Check Point threat cloud intelligence, which provides real-time protection against web application attacks including zero-day threats, automatically receiving updates from the threat cloud and analyzing millions of indicators of compromise daily."

"It offers high performance and improved productivity for users."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"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."

"We get alerts if we have some malware."

Cons

"The accuracy of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could be improved by reducing the number of false-negative alerts."

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer."

"The solution's learning curve can still be further reduced"

"The platform's control features related to real-time authentication and response time need improvement."

"Support can be challenging at times."

"If they add logs history within the Cloudflare offering, that would be a great benefit."

"The learning curve was steep initially."

"Its stability could be better."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall cons

"I would like to be able to integrate the theme of Artificial Intelligence to help review issues and to monitor and view the security issue while also suggesting and interpreting and additionally configuring solutions - basically, acting as an interpreter."

"The trial version should be extended further so that QA test engineers can actually test the utilities in a real sense and can provide the maximum amount of feedback for enhancements."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."

"The creation of security profiles for each application takes a lot of time."

"We would like to have a solution of this type for the administration of applications from mobile devices."

"Deeper and more transparent integration between Cloud Application Security and analysis monitoring tools could be very valuable - although the solution currently offers integrations with third-party security tools."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF's support is only available in English."

"We are satisfied with the product because it does what we need it to do, but one thing that I would like to see improved in the product is the protection of our mobile applications. When I migrate the traffic from our mobile application to CloudGuard, we are not getting what we expected."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"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 solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients."

"It is not too pricey."

"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."

"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."

"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."

"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"

"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."

"I work for an Indian banking client. In India, companies are on a budget. The company liked Check Point very much, but it was a little bit costly compared to FortiWeb. However, it had more features compared to FortiWeb."

"If the pricing for the Infinity platform covers everything, it would be more straightforward. I had a hard time selling it to our CEO as a former CFO because of the differentials. There are different deltas year to year over a five-year period. It is very difficult to explain. It would be easier to digest for our executives if there was a flatter scale"

"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."

"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."

"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,696 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

24%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	35
Midsize Enterprise	20
Large Enterprise	19

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?

The price of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is reasonable.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about CloudGuard for Application Security?

We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive. It is a little bit expensive. You cannot avoid this from an Israeli product....

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?

There are some API gateway and API securities I mentioned. If these are incorporated with AI-related features, partic...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Comodo cWatch?

I use the solution to detect vulnerabilities in the site.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 8% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 6% of the time

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

AWS WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Competitors

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 14% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 9% of the time

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 6% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

Atomic ModSecurity Rules vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 24% of the time

SiteLock vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 22% of the time

Cloudflare vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 15% of the time

Sucuri vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 13% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 6% of the time

More Comodo cWatch Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

March 2026

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall report

Download Cloudflare Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

March 2026

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

CDN

March 2026

Download Comodo cWatch product report

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec

cWatch

Overview

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's intuitive dashboard enables users to build powerful rules through easy clicks and also provides Terraform integration. Every request to the WAF is inspected against the rule engine and the threat intelligence curated from protecting over 27 Million websites. Suspicious requests can be blocked, challenged or logged as per the needs of the user while legitimate requests are routed to the destination, agnostic of whether it lives on-premise or in the cloud. Analytics and Cloudflare Logs enable visibility into actionable metrics for the user.

Cloudflare

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers advanced security for web applications and APIs with features such as intrusion prevention, bot prevention, and AI-driven threat detection, ensuring organizations achieve high-level protection and efficient security management.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF integrates with APIs, providing a seamless security enhancement while reducing false positives. Its scalability supports rapid deployment, valuable for companies aiming to secure resources in clouds like AWS and Azure. Enhanced threat prevention, comprehensive compliance support, and advanced threat protection methods such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting prevention are key strengths. Despite its robust capabilities, there are opportunities for improvement, such as lower costs, improved third-party tool integration, and a more intuitive interface to enhance usability.

What are the key features of Check Point CloudGuard WAF?

Intrusion Prevention System: Effectively detects and blocks unauthorized access attempts.
Bot Prevention: Shields applications from malicious bot traffic.
AI-driven Threat Detection: Uses advanced algorithms to identify and mitigate threats.
Log Management: Offers extensive logging capabilities for tracking and analysis.
Scalability: Supports rapid deployment across different environments, including multi-cloud.

What benefits should users expect from Check Point CloudGuard WAF?

Security Efficiency: Combines high-grade protection with ease of use to simplify security management.
Cost Efficiency: Aids in effective resource utilization, minimizing overhead.
Compliance Support: Helps meet various industry standards effortlessly.
Enhanced Threat Protection: Provides robust safeguards against common web vulnerabilities.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is predominantly applied within industries requiring stringent security standards, such as financial services, healthcare, and e-commerce. Its deployment strengthens the defense of critical APIs, facilitates compliance, and supports efficient multi-cloud security management, aligning well with evolving industry demands.

Check Point Software Technologies

Cwatch delivers robust website protection from hackers - while it helps you stay calm when online. It does not just stop with protection but helps in scanning the website to remove malware instantly. It is a complete website security tool that delivers state-of-the-art protection techniques to ensure SMB website security from simple to complex threat landscape. It ensures early threat detection, instant solution and sophisticated preventive measures.

Xcitium

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

March 2026

Free Report: Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,696 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch report.

See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.

We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.