Comodo cWatch vs F5 Advanced WAF comparison

Xcitium and F5 are both solutions in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category. Xcitium is ranked #26 with an average rating of 9.0, while F5 is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.4. Xcitium holds a 1.1% mindshare in WAF, compared to F5’s 7.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Xcitium users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 98% of F5 users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 1, 2025

Comodo cWatch and F5 Advanced WAF are web application firewalls competing in online security. Comodo cWatch has the upper hand in pricing and customer service, while F5 Advanced WAF excels in features that justify its cost.

Features: Comodo cWatch integrates real-time monitoring, security tools, and remediation services, ideal for small to medium enterprises. F5 Advanced WAF offers advanced threat detection, DDoS protection, and SSL offloading, making it suitable for larger organizations requiring robust security.

Room for Improvement: Comodo cWatch could improve its feature set to cater to larger enterprises, enhance its automation capabilities, and provide more comprehensive threat intelligence. F5 Advanced WAF might benefit from streamlining its deployment complexity, reducing initial setup costs, and enhancing user interface simplicity for easier management.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Comodo cWatch is known for easy cloud-based deployment with strong customer support. F5 Advanced WAF provides extensive support and customizable deployments, though its on-premises setup can be more complex, fitting for enterprises needing tailored solutions.

Pricing and ROI: Comodo cWatch offers lower initial costs and attractive ROI for budget-conscious users. F5 Advanced WAF, despite higher pricing, is viewed as a long-term investment due to its comprehensive features and performance returns, appealing to enterprises investing in robust protection.

To learn more, read our detailed Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,311 peers since 2012

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 ...

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is 5.4%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 1.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 7.1%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
F5 Advanced WAF	7.1%
Cloudflare Web Application Firewall	5.4%
Comodo cWatch	1.1%
Other	86.4%

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

Featured Reviews

Dean Barisic

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.

Read full review

Bernardo Murillo

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.

Read full review

Kallamuddin Ansari

Cyber Security Consultant at ProTechmanize

Application security has protected critical banking services while policy learning minimizes false blocks

F5 Advanced WAF performs well overall, but I have noticed some points that could enhance the solution. Initially, policy tuning could be simpler, as while the learning engine is powerful, initial tuning still requires experienced engineers, which can be challenging for new teams due to the complexity of options and parameters. A more guided and simple tuning workflow would help reduce the learning curve. Additionally, tighter native integration with SIEM or SOAR tools would simplify correlation and investigations for security teams, although log exports are available. Overall, these are not blockers, merely enhancement opportunities, and once tuned, F5 Advanced WAF is very stable and reliable; improving usability, reporting, and onboarding would make it even more effective for larger environments.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Some of the most valuable features of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall include its DNS zone setup and the zero trust policy."

"It is a SaaS solution unlike much of the competition."

"It protects web applications efficiently."

"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."

"Cloudflare is cheaper compared to Azure WAF, which I have considered before."

"The integration of Cloudflare with Cloud Suite is its most valuable feature."

"The product has improved our security posture by blocking bad actors."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pros

"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."

"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."

"The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."

"They took my website under their surveillance, scanned the website for infection, detected the incident, and removed it in a jiff."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its extensive set of capabilities for application protection, including DDoS prevention, and its ability to work with Pentesters and external scanners to observe user activity and eliminate false positives."

"It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements."

"The anti-bot protection is the solution's most valuable feature. Safe-guard or credential staffing are also useful features."

"With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform."

"It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features."

"The solution is easily accessible on mobile and laptop devices."

"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."

More F5 Advanced WAF pros

Cons

"The solution's learning curve can still be further reduced"

"They have some limitations with third-party integrations."

"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."

"Support can be challenging at times."

"We don't even use Cloudflare Bot Management because it's too expensive; you need to pay per request, and it's much cheaper to get one or two additional machines."

"The learning curve was steep initially."

"The ModSecurity core rules need to be updated."

"We have noticed some latency when the call goes through the firewall. That could be improved."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall 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."

"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."

"I think the contextual-based component needs a lot of help; it is all based on regular expressions, and we are transitioning off to Signal Sciences on some of our WAF components because of the capabilities Signal Sciences has."

"The accuracy of the automatic learning feature needs improvement."

"We usually use a third-party tool for logging and reporting. It would be nice if we could do that right on this solution."

"The product could be more user-friendly for administrators."

"I would like to see the API Protection improved."

"We get false positives sometimes."

"The BNS module needs improvement."

"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."

More F5 Advanced WAF cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF."

"The solution is expensive."

"It starts at $20 and can easily go up to $200 monthly"

"Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is more affordable than other solutions."

"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."

"It is not too pricey."

"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."

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall pricing and cost advice

"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."

"I think the price is very high."

"Licensing fees for this solution are paid on a yearly basis."

"There are various plans available for Fortinet FortiWeb Cloud WAF as a Service, including a trial version."

"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."

"It is expensive. Its price should be better. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. Its licensing is also based on the model. There are no additional costs."

"The cost is slightly above average."

"The pricing is too high."

"I am not sure about pricing but licenses are available on Google."

More F5 Advanced WAF pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Construction Company

17%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

No data available

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	6

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	26
Midsize Enterprise	15
Large Enterprise	31

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cloudflare Web Application Firewall?

The price of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is reasonable.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Comodo cWatch?

The portal is a little slow. I have to wait for it to load all the information. CDN's performance must be improved.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Comodo cWatch?

I use the solution to detect vulnerabilities in the site.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Comodo cWatch?

Comodo cWatch’s price is very good compared to Cloudflare’s. The first level of Cloudflare costs us about $20. The ne...

See all answers

What do you like most about F5 Advanced WAF?

It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the r...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?

The pricing for F5 Advanced WAF is a bit higher, but not that high. I would say for a good amount of revenue-generati...

See all answers

What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?

On the features I wish existed, Big-IP Advanced WAF is primarily an on-premises solution and in that solution, there ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Fortinet FortiWeb vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 8% of the time

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 7% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 6% of the time

Azure Web Application Firewall vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

AWS WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

Compared 5% of the time

More Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Competitors

SiteLock vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 22% of the time

Atomic ModSecurity Rules vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 22% of the time

Cloudflare vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 16% of the time

Sucuri vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 12% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Comodo cWatch

Compared 6% of the time

More Comodo cWatch Competitors

Fortinet FortiWeb vs F5 Advanced WAF

Compared 23% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs F5 Advanced WAF

Compared 8% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs F5 Advanced WAF

Compared 6% of the time

AWS WAF vs F5 Advanced WAF

Compared 5% of the time

NetScaler vs F5 Advanced WAF

Compared 3% of the time

More F5 Advanced WAF Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall

March 2026

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall report

Download Cloudflare Web Application Firewall product report

Buyer's Guide

CDN

March 2026

Download Comodo cWatch product report

Buyer's Guide

F5 Advanced WAF

March 2026

Download F5 Advanced WAF product report

Also Known As

Cloudflare WAF

cWatch

No data available

Overview

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's intuitive dashboard enables users to build powerful rules through easy clicks and also provides Terraform integration. Every request to the WAF is inspected against the rule engine and the threat intelligence curated from protecting over 27 Million websites. Suspicious requests can be blocked, challenged or logged as per the needs of the user while legitimate requests are routed to the destination, agnostic of whether it lives on-premise or in the cloud. Analytics and Cloudflare Logs enable visibility into actionable metrics for the user.

Cloudflare

Cwatch delivers robust website protection from hackers - while it helps you stay calm when online. It does not just stop with protection but helps in scanning the website to remove malware instantly. It is a complete website security tool that delivers state-of-the-art protection techniques to ensure SMB website security from simple to complex threat landscape. It ensures early threat detection, instant solution and sophisticated preventive measures.

Xcitium

F5 Advanced WAF is a web application security solution for financial and government sectors, e-commerce, and public-facing websites. It offers protection against various attacks, including botnets, web scraping, and foreign entities. The solution can be deployed on-premises or in the cloud and is often used with other security tools. Its most valuable features include DDoS and DNS attack protection, SSL uploading, anomaly detection, and the ability to input custom rules.

F5 Advanced WAF has helped organizations to expose more services to the public while providing an extra layer of protection, preventing revenue loss, and securing connectivity.

Sample Customers

crunchbase, udacity, marketo, okcupid, zendesk

Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital

MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank

Buyer's Guide

Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF

March 2026

Free Report: Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF

Find out what your peers are saying about Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Comodo cWatch vs. F5 Advanced WAF report.

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.