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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Mend.io 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
6.7
Check Point CloudGuard WAF delivers improved ROI, security, and efficiency, reducing costs and server needs for companies.
Sentiment score
7.1
Mend.io boosts ROI by automating vulnerability management, enabling faster delivery, cost savings, and improved security insights for organizations.
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.
Mend.io has provided a good return on investment by significantly reducing vulnerabilities.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Customer service for Check Point CloudGuard WAF has mixed feedback, with praise for efficiency but noted delays needing improvement.
Sentiment score
6.6
Mend.io's customer service excels with quick, knowledgeable support, proactive staff, and effective communication, ideal for large organizations.
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.
They prioritize providing the best experience to large organizations like ours, belonging to the Fortune 100.
I have noticed that the speed to respond has decreased over time.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Check Point CloudGuard WAF excels in scalability, praised for multi-cloud adaptability, efficient licensing, and seamless business growth support.
Sentiment score
7.7
Mend.io effectively scales for large projects, integrates with workflows, and supports CI/CD, enhancing security and collaboration.
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.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.9
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is praised for excellent stability, handling critical services reliably with minimal configuration issues.
Sentiment score
7.7
Mend.io offers reliable performance, seamless integration, quick issue resolution, and supports diverse needs with minimal downtime and intuitive interface.
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.
AI integration in code security tools like Mend.io is still in its early stages and relatively immature.
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point CloudGuard WAF needs cost efficiency, improved integration, better support, and enhanced workflows, reporting, and DevOps integration.
Mend.io requires UI and reporting enhancements, wider language support, improved scanning, automation, and cost-effective pricing for better user experience.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
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.
A machine learning-based adaptive mode could help the WAF learn over time and auto-tune policies.
The actual challenge is how easy it is to integrate it in the early phase of the software development life cycle.
I strongly recommend that they start working with AI for the reporting part.
The organization decided to consolidate tools and chose Snyk since it provides multiple functionalities in one solution.
 

Setup Cost

Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing is competitive with robust features and support, though some find it complex and pricey.
Mend.io offers a competitive yearly pricing model based on developer count, appealing for enterprises but pricey for startups.
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.
The cost of Mend.io is competitive, being quite low compared to others.
 

Valuable Features

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers scalable, AI-driven security, enhancing threat protection and integration with cloud environments for efficient operations.
Mend.io streamlines vulnerability management with automation, integration, and comprehensive tools for tracking and securing open-source dependencies.
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.
We find it 100% accurate in detecting vulnerabilities.
It handles Application Security, performing SCA SAST and container scanning.
The features I find most valuable in Mend.io are the ease of use; it is very easy to access and integrate.
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (10th)
Mend.io
Ranking in Application Security Tools
17th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (7th), Static Code Analysis (4th), Software Supply Chain Security (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mend.io is 3.4%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.3%
Mend.io3.4%
Other96.3%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
meetharoon - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables smooth management of vulnerabilities and promotes a shift towards a culture of security
We have witnessed Mend.io for its high stability, consistently living up to our expectations in terms of performance and reliability. Our developers have reported very few issues and almost minimal to zero downtime, which is a critical factor for our organization to rely on Mend SCA to secure our applications. We didn't experience any major issues in the stability of the product. This level of dependability is crucial for our hundreds of development teams that need to maintain continuous integration and deployment processes without interruptions. We realize the solution's architecture is designed to support a wide range of use cases, making it suitable for organizations of varying sizes and complexities. As a SaaS (Software as a Service) offering, Mend.io eliminates the need for physical server management, which further contributes to its stability. Users can access the platform without worrying about hardware failures or maintenance issues that can affect on-premises solutions. Moreover, Mend.io's integration capabilities with existing workflows—including IDEs, repositories, and CI/CD pipelines—enhance its stability by providing a seamless user experience. This integration allows teams to incorporate security scanning into their development processes without significant disruptions, which is often a challenge with less stable solutions. Feedback from our developers and architects highlights the tool's effectiveness in reducing open-source software vulnerabilities while maintaining a streamlined development lifecycle. Our organization have experienced improved code quality and faster incident response times as a result of using Mend.io. The platform's intuitive dashboard and management views are also praised by our developers for their usability, contributing to a positive user experience. In short, Mend.io stands out as a dependable and reliable solution in the realm of software composition analysis. Its high stability, combined with robust integration capabilities and user-friendly features, makes it an excellent choice for organizations seeking to enhance their security posture while minimizing operational disruptions.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,655 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise16
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise18
 

Questions from the Community

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?
I don't know about the pricing, setup cost, or licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF, as I don't manage costs.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved; initially, the setup is very complicated, and there's not a lot of documentation available, plus it didn't have something for anti-bot, but other than th...
How does WhiteSource compare with SonarQube?
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...
How does WhiteSource compare with Black Duck?
We researched Black Duck but ultimately chose WhiteSource when looking for an application security tool. WhiteSource is a software solution that enables agile open source security and license compl...
What do you like most about Mend.io?
The best feature is that the Mend R&D team does their due diligence for all the vulnerabilities. In case they observe any important or critical vulnerabilities, such as the Log4j-related vulner...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
WhiteSource, Mend SCA, Mend.io Supply Chain Defender, Mend SAST
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Microsoft, Autodesk, NCR, Target, IBM, vodafone, Siemens, GE digital, KPMG, LivePerson, Jack Henry and Associates
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Mend.io and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,655 professionals have used our research since 2012.