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

Comodo cWatch vs F5 Advanced WAF 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

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)
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 August 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.4%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 3.9%, down from 8.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 Advanced WAF3.9%
Comodo cWatch1.4%
Other94.7%
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

"We get alerts if we have some malware."
"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."
"The solution is very good and I feel more secure under this than I did under Symantec or McAfee."
"They took my website under their surveillance, scanned the website for infection, detected the incident, and removed it in a jiff."
"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."
"My favorite feature of F5 is the ability to play around with the ciphers. I also like the ability to have an immediate display of the support IDs when a real blockage occurs. The protection offered is great."
"The solution's most valuable features include application DDoS protection, bot blocking, and HTTP header verifications."
"If I would compare F5 with other solutions, the main differences are the support and the stability of the code, it has fewer bugs."
"It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features."
"The technical support is perfect."
"The solution isn't too expensive. The license allows you to license what you need and leave out what you don't need."
"The level of configurability that I get with F5 Advanced WAF solution is immense, and I have to be a bit aware of how it works and all of its features, but at the end of the day, it is all about the administration expertise that I will require to have and use it to my liking based on the kind of services that I have onboarded on my solution itself."
"I definitely recommend this solution because of the time you save on analysis."
 

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."
"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."
"Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI; 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."
"The solution is pretty difficult to set up. You really have to have a grasp of the product to configure it correctly."
"I would like to see additional controls."
"They could provide better pricing."
"F5 Advanced WAF is not a cost-effective solution."
"I would like for there to be a cloud-based solution, this would also help to improve scalability."
"For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees."
"The GUI interface can be confusing due to similar-looking tabs for policy building, traffic learning, and event logs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."
"There is an annual subscription for this solution."
"There is a perpetual license that comes with your hardware. There is also an additional fee for support."
"The pricing of F5 Advanced WAF is more expensive than other solutions like Radware and CD18, it is quite high."
"Pricing for this solution is higher than average."
"The way we deployed it, I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"The cost is slightly above average."
"The pricing for F5 Advanced WAF is comparable to a Rolls-Royce. Its price is a bit high when you compare it with other vendors. F5 Advanced WAF is a bit expensive. The customer was on a three-year plan and it was around $560,000."
"I would rate the pricing as seven out of ten"
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
Construction Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Hospitality Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Government
8%
 

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