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

SiteLock vs Sucuri comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

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

SiteLock
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
37th
Ranking in Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection
27th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (47th), CDN (16th)
Sucuri
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
36th
Ranking in Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection
25th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Domain Name System (DNS) Security (24th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of SiteLock is 1.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sucuri is 1.6%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Sucuri1.6%
SiteLock1.8%
Other96.6%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user723534 - PeerSpot reviewer
Guitarist at a media company with self employed
It's not easy to get out once you're in
Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information. When you sign on for the paid service, Sitelock: * Hides (makes it difficult to find) that they default the auto-renew (you can't sign up without agreeing to have them automatically bill your credit card every year). * Hides (makes it difficult to find) how to stop auto-renew: * You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses. * You have to hunt their website for a link (in extremely small font) to the page which contains instructions for cancelling. * When you get to that page, turns out it's the 5000+ word "Terms of Service" document, which you have to scour to find a phone number. Then, you have to call and get put on hold (or if you like, they will call you back three days later). Once you finally get through, you have to jump through a lot of security hoops. All of the above, just to cancel the service. Their product may or may not be OK, but be forewarned that with Sitelock, it's not easy to get out once you're in.
JS
Hardware Engineer at Ministry of Defense
A cost-effective choice for website security and informative support with issues related to CDN quality
One area where they could improve is in providing real-time support options because now you need to open a support ticket and wait for their response. It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance. I have found their Content Delivery Network service to be lacking in quality, and it could certainly be enhanced to provide better performance. I would also like to see improvements in the deployment process, as it currently takes more time than desirable. Another significant concern is that their service when your website is down, turns it into a static site. This means that if customers try to visit your site during downtime, they will see old content from the static site, which is not ideal. The CDN and tracking services are areas that need improvement, as well as addressing their bandwidth limitations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It seems to provide a bit of useful information on website health."
"Not only did SiteLock's website scanner find the issue with my website, but with SiteLock I was able to implement a security system to prevent future breaches."
"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."
"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."
"For people who own a personal website, this solution is worth trying out since their security solution is somewhat full-fledged."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Rather than locate some things manually, the Sucuri plugin scans and allows us to pinpoint whether there is malware or some problem in the site."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."
"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."
"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."
 

Cons

"Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information."
"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."
"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."
"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."
"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."
"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."
"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses."
"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."
"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."
"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."
"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."
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
Construction Company
17%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Transportation Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Construction Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you recommend for a securing Web Application?
That's one of the most critical questions any development team faces! Securing a web application requires a layered approach, not a single tool. Here is a quick breakdown of what to recommend: In...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

galaxyguitar.com, robertasinc.com, indiarunning.com, comprarenpr.com, idbasolutions.com, newgrip.com
The Loft Salon, Tom McFarlin, WPBeginner, Taylor Town, Everything Everywhere, Financial Ducks in a Row, Chubstr, Real Advice Gal, Sujan Patel, Wallao, List25, School the World
Find out what your peers are saying about SiteLock vs. Sucuri and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.