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 initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"We preferred the product based on its cost. AWS WAF is an out-of-the-box solution and integrates with the AWS services that we use. It's natively integrated with AWS."
"Their technical support has been quite good."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"The product should improve the DDoS-related features."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process."
"We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"The cost must be reduced."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."
"The portal is a little slow."
"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 26th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 4 reviews. 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 "Alerts organizations if any malware is detected and removes it quickly". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Comodo cWatch is most compared with Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Cloudflare, 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.