No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AWS WAF vs Comodo cWatch comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Comodo cWatch
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
38th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
CDN (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of AWS WAF is 3.9%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.4%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF3.9%
Comodo cWatch1.4%
Other94.7%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
Bernardo Murillo - PeerSpot reviewer
Director De Netquatro at Netquatro
Alerts organizations if any malware is detected and removes it quickly
The solution allows me to change my logo. It gives me a white-label portal because I am a partner. OWASP has been the most effective in malware prevention. It can detect if the headers are okay and do FTP scans. We get alerts if we have some malware. It is removed very quickly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The performance is excellent."
"The features I find most useful in AWS WAF are that we can integrate and write custom regex rules where we can specify URLs or links that cannot be accessed by certain countries or specific IPs."
"The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"The automation of blocking for security attacks is valuable, with AWS applying rate limiting."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to use the product to enhance security in deploying web applications."
"I would recommend the product because it is very flexible and you are able to use it with multiple services within AWS."
"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"They took my website under their surveillance, scanned the website for infection, detected the incident, and removed it in a jiff."
"My customers see ROI in the sense that their whole environment is secure."
"The solution is very good and I feel more secure under this than I did under Symantec or McAfee."
"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."
 

Cons

"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."
"We should be able to do proper whitelisting."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"We must monitor and clean up the WAF manually."
"AWS WAF can be improved if the dashboard is enhanced in such a way that everything will be displayed automatically without you going in there to see what is going on."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"There is a lot of innovation talk, however, implementation might be lacking."
"The serverless product from AWS WAF could be improved. For example, they have only one serverless series, Lambda, but they should extend and improve it. Additionally, the firewall rules are not very easy to configure."
"Better CDN could be a great thing since this is the best that any website owners would be interested in for protecting their website."
"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 portal is a little slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge. It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
"You need an additional AWS subscription for this product if you are buying a managed tool."
"There are different scale options available for WAF."
"I would rate AWS WAF's pricing a seven out of ten."
"It's cheap."
"The solution is affordable."
"AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
"The price of AWS WAF is expensive if you do not know how to manage your software up or down. I price of the solution is average amongst the other competitors but it would be better if it was less expensive."
"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Hospitality Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise28
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF is t...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS WAF?
AWS WAF is affordable; it depends on the number of rules you apply. The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

AWS Web Application Firewall
cWatch
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.