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

Acunetix vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 16, 2026

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
6.8
Acunetix users report over 300% ROI, with enhanced security, time savings, and reduced manual testing for application vulnerability identification.
Sentiment score
6.4
Check Point WAF yields cost savings, enhanced security, and efficiency, with up to 90% ROI and reduced breach risks.
It saves a significant amount of time by covering attack surfaces.
Information Security Engineer at Tübitak Bilgem
I have seen a return on investment, as Acunetix helps reduce the man-days and effort needed for scanning bulk applications through automated assessments.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Manager, Managed Security Services at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.7
Acunetix customer support is praised for responsiveness and efficiency, despite occasional delays and varying reseller interactions.
Sentiment score
6.5
Check Point WAF is praised for support, with quick response times and skilled personnel, but needs improved non-business hours coverage.
For high-severity issues, they reach out within two to three hours, and for critical issues, a response is received within 15 minutes.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
The technical support from Invicti is very good and fast.
Information Security Engineer at Tübitak Bilgem
Support staff not being familiar with the problem.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Acunetix is scalable, adaptable to business growth, though desktop version limitations and licensing may affect its flexibility.
Sentiment score
7.4
Check Point WAF is praised for scalability, seamless cloud integration, and traffic-based licensing, with excellent support and easy expansion.
Acunetix can handle increasing workloads and more applications easily.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
Project Manager at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Check Point CloudGuard WAF's scalability is very good.
Sr. VP of Creative & Development at a non-tech company with 51-200 employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Acunetix is highly praised for its stability, with minimal issues, effective tech support, and consistent performance.
Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point WAF is highly reliable, stable, and efficient, with users praising minimal downtime and smooth operations.
It is very stable.
Team Leader, Cloudops & Cloud Architect at a consultancy with 501-1,000 employees
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
Sysadmin at a government with 501-1,000 employees
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
 

Room For Improvement

Customers seek improved API testing, mobile scanning, pricing, integrations, collaboration features, faster scans, and better user support in Acunetix.
Check Point WAF requires enhanced documentation, user interface, integration, support, security features, and improved scalability and pricing transparency.
The main concern is related to false positives; Acunetix needs to work on identifying valid and invalid findings.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
I could supply it with maybe a Swagger file or a JSON file, and Acunetix would pick it up, scan all the endpoints according to the OWASP Top Ten, and give me remediation and actionable remediation reports.
Team Lead, Application Security at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Acunetix should have better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps.
CEO at Xcelliti
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
Future releases should include better bot mitigation, behavioral anomaly detection, compliance templates, advanced threat intel integration, and streamlined multi-cloud support to boost protection and usability.
Senior Cyber Security Engineer at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
A machine learning-based adaptive mode could help the WAF learn over time and auto-tune policies.
Technical Support Executive at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
 

Setup Cost

Acunetix pricing is high and complex, based on domains and targets, with mixed opinions on transparency and flexibility.
Check Point WAF pricing is seen as expensive but justified due to its robust features and flexible licensing.
The pricing cost is affordable for small and mid-sized organizations, and when compared to Checkmarx, it is significantly affordable, as Checkmarx is quite expensive.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
We secured a special licensing model for penetration testing companies, which is cost-effective.
Information Security Engineer at Tübitak Bilgem
The pricing of Acunetix is pretty expensive and could be improved.
Senior Business Development Manager at Intouch World
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
Project Manager at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
Ciso at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Valuable Features

Acunetix offers fast, automated web vulnerability detection with user-friendly management, centralized reporting, and efficient multi-domain handling.
Check Point WAF provides AI-driven threat prevention, fast deployment, and ease of use, enhancing protection, scalability, and cost-efficiency.
Its most valuable role is in enhancing security by identifying potential vulnerabilities efficiently.
Senior Business Development Manager at Intouch World
The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities.
CEO at Xcelliti
The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
Amministratore Della Sicurezza Di Rete at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
 

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Application Security Tools
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th), Vulnerability Management (28th), DevSecOps (6th)
Check Point WAF (formerly C...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.4%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)0.7%
Acunetix2.4%
Other96.9%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
Identifies vulnerabilities across bulk web applications but needs better support and cleaner reports
The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers. The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning. In terms of reporting, Acunetix is excellent because it can generate different types of reports, such as an executive summary report, detailed reports, and developer reports that can be shared directly with developers. Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and OWASP. Acunetix provides a centralized report with compliance-related aspects and a vulnerability timeline, effectively helping reduce vulnerabilities and save time.
Krishnakumar Mahadevan - PeerSpot reviewer
EA & CISO at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees
Cloud security has strengthened risk posture and improved advanced threat visibility
There are some API gateway and API securities I mentioned. If these are incorporated with AI-related features, particularly those seven key vulnerabilities I mentioned—token theft and tool poisoning—that would be beneficial. AI-related features are not included yet in Check Point CloudGuard WAF. However, they are present in FortiGate. That is the advantage of FortiGate now. FortiGate is stopping all AI-related vulnerabilities now. FortiGate has this capability. It is unfortunate that even Palo Alto also lacks one or two of these features. Check Point Quantum is very good, without a doubt. However, their capabilities are not in comparison with Palo Alto. There are some features, but there are some gaps in comparison with Palo Alto.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
903,257 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
In a typical enterprise environment, Acunetix is mainly used for visibility, detection, and investigation across network traffic. The main use cases usually fall into a few core areas, with primary...
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I advise that Acunetix is the best option. Invest time in proper initial configuration and scope definitions. The tool is powerful, but its effectiveness depends heavily on how the authenticated ar...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?
Everything is perfect and good, including the pricing and all related aspects.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
All original equipment manufacturers mention zero-day attacks and the exploitation of previously unknown vulnerabilities, and Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) also includes this feature. A...
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) needs to offer more competitive pricing. There are many other cloud WAF products available, and when comparing costs, other vendors have a significant cost...
What is your primary use case for CloudGuard for Application Security?
I typically use Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for protecting cloud workspaces, which includes cloud applications and websites hosted on cloud platforms, especially Amazon or Azure. My c...
 

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 WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
903,257 professionals have used our research since 2012.