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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Checkmarx One 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
7.3
Organizations achieve up to 90% ROI with Check Point CloudGuard WAF, benefiting from enhanced security, cost savings, and efficiency.
Sentiment score
7.5
Organizations saw ROI with Checkmarx One via improved development speed, cost savings, and enhanced security, despite quantification challenges.
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.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
Check Point CloudGuard WAF customer support is generally effective but needs improvement in response times and availability.
Sentiment score
7.1
Checkmarx One offers fast, expert support, though some users note resolution delays and additional support charges.
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.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.9
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly scalable, effectively handles increased traffic, and benefits from traffic-based licensing and strong support.
Sentiment score
7.1
Checkmarx One excels in scalability, integration, and automation, efficiently managing various organizational sizes though licensing can be restrictive.
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.
It handles increasing traffic easily because we can extend our demands based on our needs.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly stable, offering robust performance and minimal downtime with rare disruption instances.
Sentiment score
7.2
Checkmarx One is reliable with some performance issues during large scans; user ratings vary from six to ten.
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.
I would rate the stability of this solution a nine on a scale of 1 to 10 where one is low stability and 10 is high.
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point CloudGuard WAF needs interface, monitoring, documentation, pricing improvements, AI integration, easier setup, and enhanced mobile protection.
Checkmarx One needs enhanced false positive reduction, language support, CD integration, pricing, UI, reporting, and automation improvements.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
It's not something you manipulate, it's not an antivirus where you deal with signatures, updates, and upgrades every day.
I would say that the more automation this product has, the easier it will be to work with it.
It could suggest how the code base is written and automatically populate the source code with three different solution options to choose from.
 

Setup Cost

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers flexible, subscription-based pricing with competitive features, though costs can exceed alternatives like Azure WAF and FortiWeb.
Checkmarx One offers high quality and performance, though its pricing varies and is often seen as expensive yet competitive.
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.
 

Valuable Features

Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides advanced security, easy integration, AI threat detection, and compliance, enhancing control and visibility.
Checkmarx One provides comprehensive vulnerability analysis with intuitive features, efficient reporting, CI/CD integration, and extensive language support.
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.
My experience with the initial setup of Checkmarx One is straightforward; it is not complex compared to other tools that I have tried.
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (10th)
Checkmarx One
Ranking in Application Security Tools
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (23rd), Container Security (22nd), Static Code Analysis (3rd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), DevSecOps (5th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 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 Checkmarx One is 10.2%, down from 13.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One10.2%
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.3%
Other89.5%
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.
Syed Hasan - PeerSpot reviewer
Partner experiences excellent technical support and seamless initial setup
In my opinion, if we are able to extract or show the report, and because everything is going towards agent tech and GenAI, it would be beneficial if it could get integrated with our code base and do the fix automatically. It could suggest how the code base is written and automatically populate the source code with three different solution options to choose from. This would be really helpful.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business25
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise16
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise38
 

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...
What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.
What do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Checkmarx One and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.