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 884,797 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

"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."

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

"Someone with a basic understanding of networking and security will be able to implement the firewall's basic features within 15 minutes."

"Cloudflare has positively impacted my organization by making it easier for me to handle and set up DNS for multiple clients; I can easily go in and access their accounts, make changes they need, and it's a one-stop shop."

"It is configurable via API."

"Caching is the most valuable feature of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall."

"The integration of Cloudflare with Cloud Suite is its most valuable feature."

"It protects web applications efficiently."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pros

"It offers good functionality of the application that is currently running."

"It helps us streamline our revenue streams, and we're spending less money on application security."

"CloudGuard WAF has been great."

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

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

"Overall, the product is excellent."

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

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"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."

"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."

Cons

"Their documentation could be better. They don't have documentation that explains everything well. They have documentation for everything you're looking for, but they lack a single piece of documentation to tie everything together. As a new user or beginner, it took us a little bit of time to figure out how to put all these things in place."

"It would be ideal if the solution offered better log integration and more integration with different platforms."

"The learning curve was steep initially."

"We don't even use Cloudflare Bot Management because it's too expensive; you need to pay per request, and it's much cheaper to get one or two additional machines."

"Its stability could be better."

"There could be an option to duplicate the cluster to maintain the consistency of rules."

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

"The notification part could be improved. It's very much connected to Web Application Firewall, rate-limiting, and DDoS protection."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall cons

"I do not know if it is already there, but I would like to have complete visibility between the posture management and firewall as a service."

"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation."

"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."

"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."

"I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further."

"The coding configurations can be simplified to save time for IT teams and developers."

"Cost reduction and trial period extension should be considered with some lucrative discount offerings in buying standard versions."

"CloudGuard WAF could improve UI simplicity, reduce false positives, and enhance policy management."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"A small problem is from the support team. Sometimes they are a bit delayed."

"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."

"The portal is a little slow."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"Cloudflare offers different types of subscriptions for businesses, enterprises, and personal users, and the pricing is negotiable."

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

"It is not too pricey."

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

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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"

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

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

884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

26%

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	36
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

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 9% of the time

AWS WAF 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 16% of the time

Sucuri vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 12% 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

884,797 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.