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

Acunetix vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.6
Acunetix enhances security, reduces reliance on testers, lowers costs, and improves application security, offering strong ROI in budget discussions.
Sentiment score
7.7
Organizations experienced significant ROI with Check Point CloudGuard WAF, enhancing security, reducing costs, and improving NIST compliance.
It saves a significant amount of time by covering attack surfaces.
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
Acunetix customer service is responsive but not 24/7, with mixed reviews on support speed and issue resolution.
Sentiment score
7.4
Mixed feedback on CloudGuard WAF support; praised for effectiveness but some users report delays and suggest improvements.
The technical support from Invicti is very good and fast.
The technical support from Acunetix is quite good
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
Acunetix offers scalable, flexible scanning for varying environments, with licensing and performance as key factors impacting scalability.
Sentiment score
8.5
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers excellent scalability and flexibility, efficiently handling traffic and supporting multi-cloud environments seamlessly.
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
It handles increasing traffic easily because we can extend our demands based on our needs.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.1
Acunetix boasts remarkable stability with minimal maintenance, reliable performance, consistent results, and few bugs or disruptions reported.
Sentiment score
8.3
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly stable and reliable, with minimal downtime and quick issue resolutions, crucial for finance.
It is very stable.
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
 

Room For Improvement

Acunetix users seek improvements in IAST, database, authentication, pricing, scan limits, mobile support, tool integration, and report customization.
Check Point CloudGuard WAF needs cost reduction, improved support, simpler UI, better integration, enhanced protection, and comprehensive reporting.
Acunetix should have better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps.
The support program was helpful in addressing it.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
It's not something you manipulate, it's not an antivirus where you deal with signatures, updates, and upgrades every day.
I would say that the more automation this product has, the easier it will be to work with it.
 

Setup Cost

Acunetix pricing is considered expensive, ranging $3,000-$500,000, influenced by domains and features, requiring careful evaluation.
Enterprise buyers find Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing competitive despite initial costs, valuing features, support, and flexible packages.
We secured a special licensing model for penetration testing companies, which is cost-effective.
The pricing of Acunetix is pretty expensive and could be improved.
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
 

Valuable Features

Acunetix provides efficient vulnerability scanning with integration capabilities, accurate reporting, and is user-friendly, scalable, and low-maintenance for teams.
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers scalable management, AI-driven security, seamless integration, reduced maintenance, and enhanced compliance with real-time alerts.
Its most valuable role is in enhancing security by identifying potential vulnerabilities efficiently.
The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities.
I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention.
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
 

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Application Security Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th), Vulnerability Management (22nd), DevSecOps (6th)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.9%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy
Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.
Dialungana Malungo - PeerSpot reviewer
Protects our web applications and APIs and has a very low false positive rate
CloudGuard WAF is a very straightforward solution. I do not have to worry about signatures. Most of the solutions that are out there are mainly based on signatures, and I have to do a lot of maintenance to get the signature updates, and sometimes, due to a lack of resources, I am not able to do so. With CloudGuard WAF, I have peace of mind, because most of the features are AI-based, and there is not much configuration that needs to be done on my side. Once set, I only go to CloudGuard WAF to check. I do not have to worry about signatures or updates. Everything is done perfectly, and I have a sense of peace because I know our applications are safe. It is very important for us that CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. That is definitely one of the key features I need.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...
What do you like most about CloudGuard for Application Security?
We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage. Also, while the documentation is comprehensive, it can be diffi...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Orange España, Paschoalotto
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Check Point CloudGuard WAF and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.