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

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Comodo cWatch comparison

 

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)
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (19th)
Comodo cWatch
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
37th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
CDN (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Azure Web Application Firewall is 1.8%, down from 3.2% 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 (%)
Azure Web Application Firewall1.8%
Comodo cWatch1.4%
Other96.8%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

RJ
Global IT Solutions Specialist at RELIEF INTERNATIONAL INC
Offers robust analytics and seamless cloud integration with minor room for user interface improvement
The Microsoft support and the analytics are what I appreciate about Azure Web Application Firewall. It integrates effectively with things such as Sentinel and Defender for Cloud, so mostly it's the analytics and now the AI capabilities that have been introduced with Co-pilot. It helps when looking for threats. It reduces issues significantly because the filtering capabilities are high. Given that it's a cloud solution, we have very minimal downtime, especially because we have Microsoft support. On a scale of one to 10, I would give it an eight.
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

"The best features of Azure Web Application Firewall are that it provides security and protection from poorly designed web applications."
"Configuration is much easier than using different platforms."
"We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation."
"We already have some of our workloads published outside of Azure, and this allows them to connect to the database."
"I can only strongly recommend using the Azure Web Application Firewall."
"Azure WAF is extremely stable."
"It's quite a stable product and works well with Microsoft products."
"It's great for protecting against DDoS attacks."
"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."
"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"They took my website under their surveillance, scanned the website for infection, detected the incident, and removed it in a jiff."
"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."
 

Cons

"Microsoft technical support for Azure Web Application Firewall has presented challenges. When working on Azure Firewall, understanding requirements was difficult because support teams often passed issues from one to another without addressing requirements accurately."
"The management can be improved."
"The support for proxy forwarding could improve."
"I would say that Azure's customer service is not that good...I am not very happy with the support offered."
"Upgrading the platform regularly is necessary for security, however, frequent updates every six months or year from Azure can be a maintenance overhead."
"From a reporting perspective, they could do more there."
"From my point of view, there is no need for improvement."
"There is a need to be able to configure the solution more."
"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."
"A small problem is from the support team. Sometimes they are a bit delayed."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good."
"The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed."
"I give the pricing a nine out of ten."
"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."
"The price is reasonable. It is approximately $2,000 US per month."
"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."
"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.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
Construction Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Hospitality Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

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: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.