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

Comodo cWatch vs F5 Advanced WAF 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

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)
F5 Advanced WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 3.4%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 Advanced WAF3.4%
Comodo cWatch1.4%
Other95.2%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer2797602 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Granular security policies have protected critical applications and ensure safe user and admin access
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify which source generated these requests, including the source and port information for initiation. These data are missing from F5 Advanced WAF. Besides that, another improvement could be refining the bot detection to minimize false positives; it should be able to verify more granularly between legitimate and non-legitimate clients. Overall, I find everything else good. A wish list feature I have is for the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) to respond more promptly. Their response time needs improvement; while they do not take excessive time, it can be enhanced, especially given it is a security product.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"The solution is very good and I feel more secure under this than I did under Symantec or McAfee."
"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"My customers see ROI in the sense that their whole environment is secure."
"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."
"They took my website under their surveillance, scanned the website for infection, detected the incident, and removed it in a jiff."
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability, and its initial setup was straightforward."
"F5 products are highly stable, top-notch solutions, and we have also the expertise to deploy and design the F5 and Palo Alto product lines."
"Across all of our customers, we have more than a million users at the same time with no issues."
"WAF functionality is valuable for protecting applications from attacks."
"The most valuable features of the F5 Advanced WAF are the enhanced ASM and the performance, and additionally, the usability and effectiveness are very good."
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the balancer and you can change policies very easily."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the security features and the protection."
 

Cons

"Better CDN could be a great thing since this is the best that any website owners would be interested in for protecting their website."
"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."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the reporting. It's a bit difficult to populate, them. If you're not so familiar with the functions, such as where to find the logs and other settings."
"On the features I wish existed, Big-IP Advanced WAF is primarily an on-premises solution and in that solution, there are not enough features that need to be there to protect API-based applications."
"The accuracy of the automatic learning feature needs improvement."
"The price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve; it is expensive."
"One improvement for AOF could be focusing on enhancing its AI engine to make it more mature."
"The scalability could be improved."
"The user interface (UI) seems a bit outdated. Making it more user-friendly would be beneficial."
"I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."
"There is an annual subscription for this solution."
"The cost is slightly above average."
"There is a perpetual license that comes with your hardware. There is also an additional fee for support."
"I would rate the pricing as seven out of ten"
"I rate F5 Advanced WAF's pricing a three out of ten."
"The price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve it is expensive."
"The solution is very expensive so should only be used in the right environment."
"Its price is fair. We have done a couple of deals where they were able to give some kind of discount to the customers. The price was initially high for the customers, but after a couple of negotiations, it came within their budget. They were happy with that."
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
Comms Service Provider
13%
Construction Company
12%
Hospitality Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise16
Large Enterprise31
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?
F5 Advanced WAF is somewhat costly compared to other vendors, but it is worth the investment due to the stability it provides to the environment and infrastructure.
What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify wh...
What is your primary use case for F5 Advanced WAF?
My main use case for F5 Advanced WAF is to protect external and internal applications from cyber attacks and to prevent malicious payloads and malicious data from reaching servers. Even if maliciou...
 

Also Known As

cWatch
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.