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 0.9% 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.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Read 51 Check Point CloudGuard WAF reviews

3,003 Views
2,282 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Comodo cWatch

Read 4 Comodo cWatch reviews

756 Views
605 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Comodo cWatch

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: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,360 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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

8th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (5th)

Comodo cWatch

Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)

26th

Average Rating

9.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

CDN (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 2.6%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 0.9%, 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
Product	Market Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF	2.6%
Comodo cWatch	0.9%
Other	96.5%

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

Featured Reviews

reviewer2751468

Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 201-500 employees

Robust threat protection improves security and operational efficiency

Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex. More guided workflows or templates would help speed up deployment, along with deeper integration with the DevOps pipeline, and while it handles API well, more dedicated API security would add value. In addition, it could be improved with better integration with the DevOps pipeline, more granular reporting, as the dashboards provide good high-level visibility, but sometimes digging into specific attack patterns or trends requires manual effort, and simple tuning of the ML models would be beneficial.

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

"CloudGuard WAF has been great."

"The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments."

"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 is a very scalable and stable solution."

"Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."

"With CloudGuard WAF, I have peace of mind, because most of the features are AI-based, and there is not much configuration that needs to be done on my side."

"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."

"The automated policy creation and threat intelligence have helped my team by reducing manual configuration and saving time, and the threat intelligence updates ensure immediate protection against new threats, simplifying daily operations and improving response speed."

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 web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good."

"When I migrate the traffic from our mobile application to CloudGuard, we are not getting what we expected."

"I advise proactive threat detection intelligence offline, which can also help monitor and ensure system checks and compliances are in place."

"You need to know exactly the system. You cannot have someone running the system if they don't have the knowledge to do so."

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

"It was costlier than other solutions."

"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 WAF is a strong solution, but there are a few areas where it could be improved, particularly the user interface for managing custom rules and exceptions, which could be more intuitive and streamlined to reduce the learning curve for new users, especially when deploying for the first time."

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 sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others."

"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"

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."

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

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

"As Infiniti customers, the pricing is manageable, as we have allowances dedicated to each Check Point product. The price is not as high compared to other options I have dealt with in the past."

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

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

881,360 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

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	33
Midsize Enterprise	19
Large Enterprise	16

No data available

Questions from the Community

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 it was amazing to see the results.

See all answers

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

The setup cost was taken with the head of the department, who handled the pricing and everything.

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?

Currently, there is nothing in the areas of Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I would like to see improved or enhanced in the future. If there is anything in the roadmap, I would definitely like to t...

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 next level costs $100. Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, cost...

See all answers

Comparisons

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 15% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% 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 10% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

Atomic ModSecurity Rules vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 33% of the time

SiteLock vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 18% of the time

Cloudflare vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 17% of the time

Sucuri vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 11% of the time

Uplynk vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 8% of the time

More Comodo cWatch Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

January 2026

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

CDN

January 2026

Download Comodo cWatch product report

Also Known As

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

cWatch

Overview

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

Orange España, Paschoalotto

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

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

December 2025

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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,360 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.