We performed a comparison between Comodo cWatch and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"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."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Comodo cWatch is ranked 35th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Excellent security, good encryption, and pretty stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Sucuri and AWS WAF, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall.
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.
