Compare AWS WAF vs. Comodo cWatch

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
AWS WAF Logo
12,024 views|10,052 comparisons
Comodo cWatch Logo
918 views|592 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
502,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less.""The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match.""The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,""The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements.""The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.""AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules.""This product supplies options for web security for applications accessing sensitive information.""Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."

More AWS WAF Pros »

"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."

More Comodo cWatch Pros »

Cons
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.""The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.""For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots""I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps.""It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security.""When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them.""The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product.""The pricing model is complicated."

More AWS 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."

More Comodo cWatch Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39.""It has a variable pricing scheme.""We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise.""It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."

More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
502,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most.
Top Answer: We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes… more »
Top Answer: It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will… more »
Top Answer: The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources. For example, a few days ago, I faced around 30 to 40 users and I had issues with the Comodo C1clp. It's like… more »
Top Answer: I did multiple projects on security compliance based on HIPAA and ISO 27001, CIS, and the PCI DSS. We are using Comodo to protect us from, among others things, DDoS and Ransomware.
Top Answer: The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue.
Ranking
Views
12,024
Comparisons
10,052
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
601
Rating
8.0
Views
918
Comparisons
592
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
709
Rating
9.5
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
AWS Web Application Firewall
cWatch
Learn More
Overview

AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

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.

Offer
Learn more about AWS WAF
Learn more about Comodo cWatch
Sample Customers
eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Energy/Utilities Company29%
Media Company29%
Transportation Company14%
Manufacturing Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company26%
Comms Service Provider19%
Media Company15%
Financial Services Firm7%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business18%
Midsize Enterprise35%
Large Enterprise47%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
502,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.

AWS WAF is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews while Comodo cWatch is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.2, while Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Use this product to make it possible to deploy web applications securely". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Excellent security, good encryption, and pretty stable". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 BIG-IP, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Akamai Kona Site Defender and Cloudflare, whereas Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Sucuri, SiteLock and Imperva Incapsula. See our AWS 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.