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: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 883,044 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) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
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 is configurable via API."

"The rate limiting features and customizations in terms of URL match and applying policies are valuable to me."

"The product has a valuable security control functionality."

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

"Cloudflare is cheaper compared to Azure WAF, which I have considered before."

"The stability of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall deserves a perfect 10 out of 10."

"There is a huge signature repository"

"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."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pros

"The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage."

"The tool's most valuable feature is AI, which makes operations easier. Moreover, it is easy to deploy."

"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."

"The most effective CloudGuard feature for threat prevention is its web app protection."

"Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security."

"Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure."

"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."

"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."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"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

"The learning curve was steep initially."

"Its stability could be better."

"The ModSecurity core rules need to be updated."

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

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

"A key challenge arises when dealing with numerous integrations with HVAC systems. Depending on the specifics, there might be some configuration mismatches, which necessitate specific support."

"The product can improve by having more multitenancy capability, which is currently not available."

"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."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall cons

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

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

"The UI interface needs improvement because there are a number of bugs. Integration with the SIEM platform is currently one of the key challenges that need to be addressed."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved; initially, the setup is very complicated, and there's not a lot of documentation available, plus it didn't have something for anti-bot, but other than that, it is fine."

"Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex."

"It doesn't detect user activity like some of its competitors. It's not a vulnerability, but it's a legitimate activity that it doesn't detect. It only detects vulnerabilities or misconfigurations."

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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

"The solution is expensive."

"It is not too pricey."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall 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."

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

883,044 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

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	16
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	33
Midsize Enterprise	20
Large Enterprise	18

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 really use the rule-based logic feature or utilize the WAF's ability to scale as a cloud-based service. I don...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?

I'm using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall on all my domains and any client domains I have; I set them up with a C...

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?

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?

Check Point could improve or add more flexibility when it comes to migrating to different sites. Multi-tenancy is an ...

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 15% 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 10% 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 26% of the time

SiteLock vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 21% of the time

Cloudflare vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 15% of the time

Sucuri vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 11% of the time

Akamai App and API Protector vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 6% of the time

More Comodo cWatch Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

February 2026

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall report

Download Cloudflare Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

February 2026

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

CDN

February 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

February 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: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

883,044 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.