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

ArmorCode vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

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

ArmorCode
Ranking in Application Security Tools
27th
Ranking in DevSecOps
12th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
2.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (15th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (13th)
Check Point WAF (formerly C...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
4th
Ranking in DevSecOps
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of ArmorCode is 0.8%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 1.1%, up from 0.4% 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)1.1%
ArmorCode0.8%
Other98.1%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Amandeep Pawar - PeerSpot reviewer
Engineer Technology at Iris Software Technologies Private Limited
Centralized risk-based workflows have reduced alert fatigue and improve on-time secure delivery
ArmorCode is a strong ASPM platform that provides centralized visibility and risk-based prioritization, and there are several areas where it could be enhanced to improve the user experience and increase adoption across development teams. Improvements could include more AI-powered remediation guidance, improved developer experience, enhanced predictive risk analysis, strong cloud-native visibility such as Kubernetes, custom reporting, and dashboards including custom risk scorecards, team-specific dashboards, and faster onboarding and setup of new security tools. Improvements could also include pre-built integration, automation, automated connector setup, guided onboarding, and better risk connection that assesses criticality, business impact, data sensitivity, and internet exposure. The most important improvements needed are strong cloud-native visibility, enhanced predictive risk analysis, adding AI-powered remediation guidance, and an improved developer experience. Predictive risk analysis is one area that needs enhancement. While ArmorCode is already excellent at centralizing security findings and prioritizing risk, these improvements could further reduce remediation time and make the platform even more valuable for both security and development teams. Enhancing AI-powered remediation guidance would improve developer experience. For AI-powered remediation guidance, instead of only identifying vulnerabilities, ArmorCode could provide detailed fix recommendations, secure code examples, root cause analysis, and automated remediation suggestions.
Krishnakumar Mahadevan - PeerSpot reviewer
CISO at Spink Solutions Private Limited
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"ArmorCode is very effective software that reduces human effort and saves time, has a huge impact on the company's revenue and profit, and we deliver everything on time to the client because of ArmorCode."
"The positive impact of ArmorCode on our organization includes improved vulnerability prioritization and better collaboration between security and development teams, as instead of discussing thousands of findings, we focus on critical risks, significantly reducing unnecessary effort and allowing the team to quickly identify high-risk vulnerabilities and assign remediation to application owners."
"The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities."
"Automation has helped a lot to identify and automatically execute policies, rules, and blocks due to its machine learning."
"The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively."
"I find the configuration and real-time monitoring features valuable."
"Overall, the product is excellent."
"We have prevented many potential threats that could be a major setback to our set goals."
"Since implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), it has helped us to get more business, and along with that, we are able to prevent threats to our organization using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)."
"Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a SaaS platform that gives unified cloud-native security across my applications, workloads, and network, allowing me to automate security, prevent threats, ensure compliance, and manage my security posture well across all my cloud environments."
 

Cons

"Improvements could include more AI-powered remediation guidance, improved developer experience, enhanced predictive risk analysis, strong cloud-native visibility such as Kubernetes, custom reporting, and dashboards including custom risk scorecards, team-specific dashboards, and faster onboarding and setup of new security tools."
"I would like to see more AI-driven remediation recommendations, deeper contextual risk analysis, and additional workflow automation for the enterprise environment."
"When I was working with the WAF platform, there were limitations, particularly concerning compliance and reporting."
"I have not seen a return on investment, as I still have the same number of employees and the same amount of effort and time in hours."
"I would like this solution to be extended to cellular devices or tablets."
"The negative aspect is that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) uses Check Point Harmony in its management console, which sometimes creates latency when connecting to or opening the platform."
"The UI interface needs improvement because there are a number of bugs. Integration with the SIEM platform is currently one of the key challenges that need to be addressed."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF could be improved by simplifying the initial setup for a faster deployment, making the dashboard and reporting more customizable, and offering a more accessible pricing model."
"It was costlier than other solutions."
"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is extremely affordable and high value for cost."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"If the pricing for the Infinity platform covers everything, it would be more straightforward. I had a hard time selling it to our CEO as a former CFO because of the differentials. There are different deltas year to year over a five-year period. It is very difficult to explain. It would be easier to digest for our executives if there was a flatter scale"
"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"As Infiniti customers, the pricing is manageable, as we have allowances dedicated to each Check Point product. The price is not as high compared to other options I have dealt with in the past."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"I work for an Indian banking client. In India, companies are on a budget. The company liked Check Point very much, but it was a little bit costly compared to FortiWeb. However, it had more features compared to FortiWeb."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business57
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise40
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with ArmorCode?
I would like to see more AI-driven remediation recommendations, deeper contextual risk analysis, and additional workflow automation for the enterprise environment. I wish ArmorCode could offer more...
What is your primary use case for ArmorCode?
I started using ArmorCode in 2024 as part of our application security and exposure management program, with the objective to consolidate the security findings from multiple security tools into a si...
What advice do you have for others considering ArmorCode?
My advice for others looking into using ArmorCode is to take your time. I recommend integrating as many security tools as possible into ArmorCode, as the platform delivers the most value when it fu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
It is a little bit expensive, but the pricing model is acceptable, though a reduction would make it more competitive with leaders such as Palo Alto.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The false positive rate is a concern, but I could recommend improvements where false positives have to be minimized better. This all depends on how the rules are customized and configured, and it c...
What is your primary use case for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The main purpose is to have network security through machine learning, which can offer threat detection and intelligence for my endpoints, and I am looking for application security. I am looking fo...
 

Also Known As

ArmorCode AppSecOps Platform
Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec, Check Point CloudGuard Code Security
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Shutterfly, S&P Global, Snap Finance, Snapdocs, and The Access Group
Orange España, Paschoalotto
Find out what your peers are saying about ArmorCode vs. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.