We performed a comparison between Comodo cWatch and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The solution is pretty stable. I've never faced pressing issues or hanging issue."
"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's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"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 solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Comodo cWatch is ranked 36th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 38 reviews. Comodo cWatch is rated 9.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Comodo cWatch writes "Excellent security, good encryption, and pretty stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Comodo cWatch is most compared with Cloudflare, Atomic ModSecurity Rules, Sucuri, AWS WAF and SiteLock, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with AWS WAF, Azure Front Door, Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall.
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.
