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

Comodo cWatch vs Imperva Application Security Platform comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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

Comodo cWatch
Ranking in CDN
28th
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
38th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Imperva Application Securit...
Ranking in CDN
2nd
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
148
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (3rd), Bot Management (1st), API Security (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the CDN category, the mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.6%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Imperva Application Security Platform is 7.0%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
CDN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Imperva Application Security Platform7.0%
Comodo cWatch1.6%
Other91.4%
CDN
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer2818155 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Associate at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Application protection has improved and reporting and dashboards still need refinement
I believe Imperva Application Security Platform should have a more interactive wizard. While the dashboard is good, it could be more eye-catching. Based on my perspective, I recommend modifying the dashboards, especially the main dashboard where I can see the traffic hit count, alerts, and other latest information. In terms of reporting, I find it challenging to create reports; in my earlier days, it was difficult. Over time, I have learned how to create reports, but it should be easier to do so. I have used other tools such as firewalls or SolarWinds, where creating a report is straightforward and does not take much time, unlike in Imperva, where I have to add many elements. Modifications in the integration aspects would also be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"They took my website under their surveillance, scanned the website for infection, detected the incident, and removed it in a jiff."
"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"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 very good and I feel more secure under this than I did under Symantec or McAfee."
"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"My customers see ROI in the sense that their whole environment is secure."
"I would highly recommend Imperva Incapsula especially for customers who want extra security for their web presence."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"Deployment is simple and very fast."
"It has threat intelligence and we are using Incapsula. With threat intelligence, we can separate HTTP and HTTPS traffic. We can use Incapsula to send all the threat intelligence to the WAF."
"The implementation of Imperva Cloud WAF is easy, and because it is a cloud solution with no appliance to install, the actual installation will only take a few hours and full implementation can be completed within 24 hours."
"Imperva Cloud WAF would be the most powerful option."
"This solution has helped in securing our clients' assets, which is key."
"The solution is stable."
 

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."
"The portal is a little slow."
"Better CDN could be a great thing since this is the best that any website owners would be interested in for protecting their website."
"I would like to have support for SSL management and secure DNS."
"Pricing is a challenge for most of our customers."
"An improvement for Imperva WAF would be to reduce the number of false positives and create more strong use cases based on AI/ML or behavioral analytics."
"I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one."
"Scalability-wise, it is not so scalable as the solution is quite straightforward."
"I see some areas for improvement in Imperva Application Security Platform, especially regarding price."
"It would be helpful to have a "recommended deployment", or even a list of basic features that should either be used or turned on by default."
"As such, I have not seen a return on investment."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."
"The cost of this solution depends on the platform."
"It is very costly, but the return on investment is very high. Its cost was around $70,000, and we got it back in just six months."
"Imperva’s pricing is a bit higher in the market since it offers a full-blown WAF."
"​Although the pricing can be a little high, it is worth the protection and security that it offers.​"
"The tool is expensive."
"The solution's price is high for small companies."
"Everybody complains about the price of this solution."
"The price is high compared to other solutions like FortiWeb."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which CDN solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business88
Midsize Enterprise25
Large Enterprise71
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which Web Application Firewall (WAF) would you recommend? R&S or Imperva?
Imperva is a strong choice, given their security focus and ongoing R&D into the product in areas such as bot management.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Imperva DDoS?
The pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Imperva DDoS are reasonable for the amount of technical capabilities provided. I would rate the pricing of Imperva DDoS as five, where one is very cheap a...
What needs improvement with Imperva DDoS?
I would like to see improvements in the pooling of threats and attacks, possibly to enlarge the scale of indicators of compromise. For example, the initiation of an attack on the endpoint level cou...
 

Also Known As

cWatch
Imperva Bot Management, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Imperva API Security
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Hitachi, BNZ, Bitstamp, Moz, InnoGames, BTCChina, Wix, LivePerson, Zillow and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Comodo cWatch vs. Imperva Application Security Platform and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.