We performed a comparison between Comodo cWatch and Wallarm NG 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 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."
"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."
"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."
"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."
Comodo cWatch is ranked 35th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) while Wallarm NG WAF is ranked 32nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6, while Wallarm NG 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 Wallarm NG WAF writes "Active threat detection and adaptive rules are the most valuable for us". Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Sucuri and AWS WAF, whereas Wallarm NG WAF is most compared with Salt Security, Noname Security, AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare.
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.