We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Comodo cWatch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"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."
"The setup is complicated."
"For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"The product must provide more features."
"The price could be improved."
"It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier."
"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."
Earn 20 points
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Comodo cWatch is ranked 36th in Web Application Firewall (WAF). AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Excellent security, good encryption, and pretty stable". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Sucuri and SiteLock.
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.