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

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (12th)
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 2025, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard Code Security is 1.7%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.5%, down from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
DevSecOps
 

Featured Reviews

Mamadou Fallou Diagne - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Navin N - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution
We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this.  Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The implementation of this tool for security management and control is very simple."
"Automation has helped a lot to identify and automatically execute policies, rules, and blocks due to its machine learning."
"Check Point CloudGuard Code Security helps to improve the code security of our company, generating rapid and complete assessments to be able to make decisions for improvements."
"The data center security system has provided real-time analytics on performance and data configuration processes."
"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."
"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."
"You can maintain a legal framework structure at all times."
"We have a strong sense of security assurance when utilizing CloudGuard, as it consistently delivers outstanding protection capabilities."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."
 

Cons

"The solution should improve false-positives."
"There are a lot of opportunities for how they can use their technology to do more. That would be more like sensitive data discovery and other things besides Git Repos, but then you are expanding the scope of what necessarily their product is."
"There needs to be better security around API integration."
"I am satisfied with the performance and results enhanced by this product since we deployed it."
"We need to have many of the baselines or development guides providing less complex writing or development."
"The enhancements are needed in the logging system and log management processes."
"The costs are not transparent."
"This is a highly technical solution for users who do not have security experience. It requires specialized knowledge of configurations to use it correctly."
"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."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"The scanner could be better."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is extremely affordable and high value for cost."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"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."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"This solution is very expensive."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
15%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Spectral?
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...
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 do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?
The solution's technical support was very helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
The price of Fortify WebInspect is high, with the cost depending on the number of virtual users. It is approximately 25% higher than other solutions.
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate. The cost of the license depends on the number of virtual users and, in comparison to...
 

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: July 2025.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.