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

Azure Web Application Firewall 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

Azure Web Application Firewall
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
17th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (18th)
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 October 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.6%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Azure Web Application Firewall1.6%
Comodo cWatch1.4%
Other97.0%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Mano Senaratne - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Digital Engineering, Management Consultant at Stax Inc.
Comprehensive suite simplifies configuration while frequent updates require management
Mainly, it comes with the complete suite of Microsoft services. I can use it in conjunction with the best options and other features that come with it. Configuration is much easier than using different platforms. For example, if I have hosted the application in AWS and am using the Application Firewall from Azure, there are certain additional steps to follow when configuring them. With Microsoft, everything is within a single suite, making it easier to configure and plan. Azure continually upgrades platforms and sends us messages to upgrade to the next version, simplifying the process. Later, it's much easier if I want to upgrade the software platform, scale it, or move it to a different application host as the whole suite comes together. The return on investment is good. If I am doing applications for clients, I can invoice them for better costs. Most applications that I run and use have a better return on investment.
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're Microsoft partners and I'd recommend the solution as it is easy to understand and easy to integrate, it is very stable and we trust it as a recognized Microsoft product."
"The integration it has with GitHub is great."
"The solution has good dashboards."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"The initial setup is easy and straightforward...Azure Web Application Firewall is a scalable product."
"Configuration is much easier than using different platforms."
"The solution is scalable, and we have many clients using this solution."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Web Application Firewall is its ability to filter requests and block false positives by using custom rules and the OWASP rule set."
"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."
"My customers see ROI in the sense that their whole environment is secure."
"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
 

Cons

"Azure WAF should not be deployed in the middle of the traffic."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"We would like to see additional site services using AI to provide information about blocking requests and offer analytics on the origin of calls."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"Some Azure applications, like the web application firewall, require a certain level of SKU for hosting setup. The basic setup does not allow me to use the web application firewall and other additional services."
"Upgrading the platform regularly is necessary for security, however, frequent updates every six months or year from Azure can be a maintenance overhead."
"The knowledge base could be improved."
"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

"Azure WAF has price advantages over other WAF solutions. The pricing model is flexible because you pay on a scale based on the level of protection you need."
"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"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.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Construction Company
12%
Hospitality Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Large Enterprise12
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Web Application Firewall?
I would place Azure Web Application Firewall at an eight on a scale from one to 10, with one being cheap and 10 being expensive.
What needs improvement with Azure Web Application Firewall?
The pricing needs improvement, and I think for beginners it will be a little bit complicated, so the ease of use could be enhanced. I've worked with Fortinet and Cisco, and I think the UI is a litt...
What is your primary use case for Azure Web Application Firewall?
Because we mostly operate in the cloud and because we're a Microsoft environment, it was the best option in the scenario. The options were limited in terms of wanting to be an only Microsoft enviro...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
cWatch
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Web Application Firewall vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.