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

Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Check Point CloudGuard Clou...
Ranking in Cloud Detection and Response (CDR)
8th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MetaDefender
Ranking in Cloud Detection and Response (CDR)
19th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (37th), Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (38th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting is 1.6%. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 0.4%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting1.6%
MetaDefender0.4%
Other98.0%
Cloud Detection and Response (CDR)
 

Featured Reviews

YeAung - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at ATG Systems
Improved investigation efficiency and visibility while custom reporting and integration need enhancement
I would like to see more flexibility in creating custom and scheduled reports in Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting. For example, being able to generate a weekly threat activity summary to specify business unit or cloud account would make it easier to share insights with management and non-technical stakeholders. More native integration with SIEM and SOAR platforms like QRadar, ServiceNow, etc., would reduce manual effort. That way, incidents surfaced in CloudGuard could automatically flow into existing workflows without extra connectors. Adding a way to tag, annotate, or assign investigations inside the platform would make it easier for teams to collaborate without switching to another tool.
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This solution helped me to improve and enhance our security posture."
"Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting made our work much easier as it serves as a centralized platform for all my cloud environment and provides workload protection such as malware protection for my entire cloud environment."
"During testing, I consistently saw a 70 or 75% faster investigation and reduced analyst workload, which is a concrete way it can deliver our work."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
 

Cons

"In my testing, Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting's scalability is not easy; it is a very challenging experience for me."
"Malware protection for my entire cloud environment is an area where improvements are needed."
"The product can be improved by optimizing performance."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting?
I would like to see more flexibility in creating custom and scheduled reports in Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting. For example, being able to generate a weekly threat ac...
What is your primary use case for Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting?
I will honestly say that we are just testing Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting in my company. It is just for testing, not production. It has not been experienced for conf...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting?
The payment pricing is a business matter I discuss directly with the key account manager, and it's not something related directly to our technical team. I just go directly to the key account manage...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Intelligence and Threat Hunting vs. MetaDefender and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.