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

Check Point CloudGuard Code Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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

Check Point CloudGuard Code...
Ranking in DevSecOps
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (31st)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in DevSecOps
10th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard Code Security is 3.4%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.7%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing6.7%
Check Point CloudGuard Code Security3.4%
Other89.9%
DevSecOps
 

Featured Reviews

Mamadou Fallou Diagne - PeerSpot reviewer
IT security and network analyst at Revenu Québec
Management team gains substantial protection while navigating ongoing configuration challenges
The most valuable features of Check Point CloudGuard Code Security include our approach to manage it via the management we have on-premises, and we also deploy the same extension management of CloudGuard to manage all the virtual systems on Azure. We effectively use artificial intelligence with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security, as we have teams that work with AI and we frequently manage our firewalls using AI along with the CloudGuard and all virtual systems.
AP
Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Knowing what measures we must take allows us to reduce costs associated with security in the cloud by providing early identification of a risk or a possible security breach."
"I can recommend Check Point CloudGuard Code Security to other organizations as it is a good platform to protect our organization."
"The implementation of this tool for security management and control is very simple."
"You can maintain a legal framework structure at all times."
"Compared to what we used before, it's helping us to be more efficient in managing our traffic."
"Having a cloud detection response helps to very quickly identify security threats in our environment."
"We have had a number of real events where developers accidentally made commits of API keys, and we were able to detect and begin response actions in minutes. We had the API key revoked in less than five minutes in such events."
"Its fastest and most outstanding characteristic is ensuring a development line that will not lead to applying applications or code development."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities and is better at it than other products."
"My experience with technical support has been good."
"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."
"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."
"It is a good product, comparable to AppScan, quite scalable, and offers good cost/value with the support and backing from Micro Focus."
 

Cons

"The solution should improve false-positives."
"The enhancements are needed in the logging system and log management processes."
"I am satisfied with the performance and results enhanced by this product since we deployed it."
"They could include web functionalities such as sandboxing."
"Some challenges with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security include that we noticed FortiGate is much more efficient on AWS, and our team prefers to deploy FortiGate there instead of CloudGuard due to the management challenges on the cloud."
"There needs to be better security around API integration."
"We need to have many of the baselines or development guides providing less complex writing or development."
"The costs are not transparent."
"The scanner could be better."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is extremely affordable and high value for cost."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"The price is okay."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Security Firm
15%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Spectral?
There are still areas for improvement with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security. All the features we have on the firewall on the on-premises side, we also have under CloudGuard such as IPS, Anti-Bo...
What is your primary use case for Spectral?
My team and I work with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security and handle all related tasks, including deploying virtual machines and configuring all aspects. Our security team's roles include networ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?
I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...
 

Also Known As

Spectral
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Doddle, Bangalore International Airport, Grupo financiero ACOBO, DigitalTrack
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard Code Security vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.