Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Comodo cWatch vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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)
26th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
CDN (14th)
Microsoft Azure Application...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Comodo cWatch is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is 8.0%, down from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Bernardo Murillo - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Bonieber  Orofeo - PeerSpot reviewer
Application gateway optimizes performance and simplifies cloud transitions
There are a lot of things I appreciate about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is beneficial for us as it helps in publishing our website, providing us comfort when it comes to the availability of our applications. The autoscaling feature in Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very obvious, and I have no issues with it; it is well planned and organized. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway impacts our cost savings while maintaining higher performance. The Web Application Firewall (WAF) in Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has been very effective in protecting applications from security threats. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway helps us manage our AI-driven applications by enabling faster transactions, improving our work.

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 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."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping."
"Microsoft has a vast variety of tools, and it blends very well."
 

Cons

"The solution needs to build better performance, specifically in the hardware resources."
"The portal is a little slow."
"A small problem is from the support team. Sometimes they are a bit delayed."
"The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules."
"We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. So, I experienced some trouble with containers."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, costs $7."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"The product is not expensive."
"We use the tool's basic subscription. Its licensing costs are monthly."
"The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive."
"I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this."
"There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution."
"Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."
"Regarding pricing for Azure Application Gateway, I would rate it at seven."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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.
What is your primary use case for Comodo cWatch?
I use the solution to detect vulnerabilities in the site.
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 next level costs $100. Comodo cWatch’s first level, which has fewer features, cost...
What's the difference between Azure Front Door and Application Gateway?
We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit ...
What do you like most about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it.
 

Also Known As

cWatch
Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Xerox, Intel, HP, UPS, Western Union, Western Digital
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about Comodo cWatch vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.