We performed a comparison between Comodo cWatch and F5 Advanced WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."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."
"It's scalable and very easy to manage."
"It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features."
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"It is also quite intuitive and user-friendly. They have several webinars that are actually like labs. You can use these webinars to learn about how to use all features of the product."
"It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements."
"There is no need to worry about updating signatures because WAF will automatically update the signatures for you."
"I definitely recommend this solution because of the time you save on analysis."
"I like all of the features, but the main one is the attack signatures."
"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."
"The contextual-based component needs a lot of help to catch up with the next-gen products."
"Scalability could be improved."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF."
"We get false positives sometimes."
"One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
Earn 20 points
Comodo cWatch is ranked 35th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) while F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 54 reviews. Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6, while F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Excellent security, good encryption, and pretty stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Sucuri and AWS WAF, whereas F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).
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.
