We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and Comodo cWatch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."
"The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes."
"The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"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 default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier."
"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 don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."
"Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement."
"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."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"The portal is a little slow."
"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."
Earn 20 points
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while Comodo cWatch is ranked 26th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 4 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Alerts organizations if any malware is detected and removes it quickly". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Comodo cWatch is most compared with Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Cloudflare, Sucuri and SiteLock. See our AWS WAF vs. Comodo cWatch report.
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.