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

Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs Comodo cWatch comparison

Sponsored
 

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

Cloudflare Web Application ...
Sponsored
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 (28th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is 4.0%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is 0.9%, up from 0.7% 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 (%)
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall4.0%
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service0.9%
Comodo cWatch1.4%
Other93.7%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

DB
CTO at PlayNirvana
Advanced security reporting has protected high-traffic betting platforms from constant attacks
I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we have a dedicated IT team for that, and I'm not involved with Cloudflare much anymore. But if I were to compare them to F5, I would like to see more features that F5 offers. F5 has an option to bring the whole infrastructure, the whole WAF and all their packages, Bot Management, and everything else on your infrastructure. You need to install certain services from their side, and then you can choose if you would like requests to hit your servers immediately or if requests need to be proxied through F5 backbone. That would be a nice addition because we have 90% of the traffic as legit traffic coming from whitelisted servers. If it comes from whitelisted servers, I don't need to go every request through the backbone; I could easily just IP whitelist everything. Then I could maybe have Bot Management on my infrastructure that drastically reduces the price of Cloudflare. I would like to see Push CDN more improved in the next release of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. And maybe something similar to Pushpin that Fastly has, which is an option where you can push messages that then can be scaled globally over the network. From our perspective, if we have a listener that listens for stock updates, I would just need to have one processor that pushes those updates to the Cloudflare API, and then Cloudflare would broadcast that message to all listeners. Cloudflare will check the order of the message, and if you, as a customer, are not connected or have some kind of network issue, when you reconnect, you will receive the latest state and missing updates.
Samir Paul - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Practitioner at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Cloud WAF has protected critical web apps and APIs and delivers fast bot and DDoS defense
Regarding improvements for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, the UI and user experience can feel dated. While the interface is functional and centralized, some third-party reviews indicate that the UI can feel outdated, and enhancements are required to provide an executive look that can be aligned with modern and intuitive next-generation competitors. The licensing and cost structure perspective may need clear planning. Barracuda service is customizable but external references note that licensing and cost planning can become complex. Advanced analytics and executive reporting could be better. The platform provides visibility and compliance reporting but organizations looking for a very polished executive dashboard, deep attack visualization, or broader cloud-native security context may find it more focused on WAF operation. Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is best suited for app and API protection and is not a full CNAPP platform. It is strong for application layer protection but is not positioned as a full CNAPP covering posture management. Modernizing the UI further, simplifying packaging and licensing clarity, enhancing the executive reporting and risk dashboard, and expanding broader cloud-native integration would be beneficial improvements.
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 security features are valuable. The particular feature we use is called OWASP."
"The rate limiting features and customizations in terms of URL match and applying policies are valuable to me."
"We like that there's load balancing, firewall capabilities, DDoS protection, et cetera, all covered by Cloudflare."
"Cloudflare WAF provides protection through rules and functionalities like Cloudflare's SDRAP."
"The stability of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall deserves a perfect 10 out of 10."
"This solution does a good job of preventing web application attacks, SQL injections, and cross-site scripting attacks."
"It's pretty convenient and pretty easy to set up and run. And then kind of for static content, it also offers caching."
"Caching is the most valuable feature of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall."
"Overall, Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has been a solid experience, as the platform has done a good job of protecting our application while remaining easy to manage."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service has never failed us so far; it is good, and we have not seen any clients complaining that it is not doing its job, failing, freezing, or hanging."
"I like its ability to identify known attacks, including DDOS attacks. It's valuable because software must be able to stop known attacks. Application attacks are evolving all the time. When it comes to software-as-a-service, we need to have software that knows about all the latest attacks. It should also protect against major unknown attacks."
"Legitimate traffic has improved around 30 to 40% after implementing Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service."
"The solution can be used for threat prevention or as a cloud-to-cloud backup system"
"The solution covers a lot of major protection or threat management functions in the feature itself."
"Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service's real-time attack detection feature has improved our customers' threat response strategies significantly."
"It provides an ease of policy management."
"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 pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"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 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."
 

Cons

"Cloudflare should update the version of the ModSecurity core rule set that they run on."
"Their documentation could be better. They don't have documentation that explains everything well. They have documentation for everything you're looking for, but they lack a single piece of documentation to tie everything together. As a new user or beginner, it took us a little bit of time to figure out how to put all these things in place."
"The notification part could be improved. It's very much connected to Web Application Firewall, rate-limiting, and DDoS protection."
"Its stability could be better."
"The platform's control features related to real-time authentication and response time need improvement."
"The learning curve was steep initially."
"They need to improve their support because getting a response for basic requests took around 48 hours, which is too long."
"The reporting could be improved if it were more granular."
"I think Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service can still do better on the DLP side."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser. The URL also exposed the user name and the hashed password. When I log into my Barracuda WAF user portal, I could see the username and the hashed password on the URL itself. So, it is not very secure, and it is important to take that off."
"We found it a bit slow when accessing it through the web browser."
"It's a very specific solution that is only requested for a customer's web code or their global IT policy."
"The licensing and cost structure perspective may need clear planning."
"I chose an eight out of ten perhaps because the price is very high and not recommended for all organizations."
"Some complex issues take longer to resolve, but overall, we have been satisfied with the support."
"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."
"The portal is a little slow."
"A small problem is from the support team. Sometimes they are a bit delayed."
"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

"Cloudflare offers different types of subscriptions for businesses, enterprises, and personal users, and the pricing is negotiable."
"The solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients."
"The pricing model is very straightforward compared to the competition. You just pay per month for the product and usage."
"What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing? I believe the pricing is not the best, but it's reasonable and acceptable. We also use the McAfee system in parallel. In terms of pricing, its okay - not great, but not bad either. It falls in the middle, which is acceptable. In terms of support licensing, last time, we were searching for a solution, and we considered products from resellers rather than directly from the cloud provider. However, the pricing we encountered was exceptionally high. As a result, we are inclined to select support from the reseller."
"The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD."
"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."
"The solution is expensive."
"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"
"I rate the product's price a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high. There are no additional costs to be paid apart from the standard licensing fees attached to the solution."
"The product is expensive but it offers flexible pricing. It could be affordable."
"It's very difficult for me to give an estimate of the cost. All I know is that we sell the box itself as a service."
"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.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Security Firm
7%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Hospitality Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise6
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?
I don't see room for improvement to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. One thing I don't know much about because we...
What is your primary use case for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?
We are using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's advanced reporting and analytics tools with their Zero Trust, so e...
What needs improvement with Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
Regarding improvements for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service, the UI and user experience can feel dated. While the interface...
What is your primary use case for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
My main use case for Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is protecting web applications running on HTTP and HTTPS sockets from...
What advice do you have for others considering Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service?
Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service is best suited for app and API protection and is not a full CNAPP platform. It is strong f...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF
Barracuda WAF as a Service
cWatch
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk
Salvation Army
Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Find out what your peers are saying about Barracuda WAF-as-a-Service vs. Comodo cWatch and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.