We performed a comparison between Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Comodo cWatch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up."
"Setup of this solution is straightforward. It's a stable and scalable solution, with good performance and fast technical support."
"Our customers value the solution's simplicity."
"The updating and signature features are my primary use case for the solution. These features are beneficial to my organization."
"I find the solution very stable."
"The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks."
"If an attack is coming continuously, you can ask the device to block it temporarily for two to three minutes. F5 has not provided us with an option to block certain IPs for some time. Barracuda can help you block someone if the source is from a different IP. You can apply the rule to the device and block it for whatsoever time you want. The solution will unblock the IP after the prescribed time as well."
"There is no one special feature, but the WAF itself is valuable: user-friendly protection against web attacks etc., authentication, reporting, accountability, alerting, and hardened OS."
"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."
"They should improve their features, so they easily compare to the competition."
"They could improve their performance, support, and their upgrades. Their updates used to be good. Their improvements were right on the money but nowadays, the updates are minor."
"The documentation is lacking. It's not like what you'd get if you were using Juniper or Cisco. They need to expand on it and make it more useful."
"I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover."
"I would like to see better controlling of the traffic."
"In the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, there should be more affordable options for WAF as a service."
"While the UI is good, it can get a little bit complicated."
"As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy."
"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."
More Barracuda Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Barracuda Web Application Firewall is ranked 14th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews while Comodo cWatch is ranked 35th in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Barracuda Web Application Firewall is rated 8.2, while Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of Barracuda Web Application Firewall writes "Provides strong issue discovery capabilities; enhance the security parameters of web applications and suitable for medium to large enterprises". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Excellent security, good encryption, and pretty stable". Barracuda Web Application Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Sucuri and AWS WAF.
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.