Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs CodeSonar comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and CodeSecure are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.8, while CodeSecure is ranked #30. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.3% mindshare in AS, compared to CodeSecure’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of CodeSecure users who would recommend it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Read 48 Check Point CloudGuard WAF reviews

1,844 Views
443 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

2,608 Views
1,800 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

CodeSonar

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

CodeSonar and Check Point CloudGuard WAF are leading solutions in the security domain. Check Point CloudGuard WAF tends to outperform due to its superior features and cloud integration capabilities.

Features: CodeSonar is valued for its ability to detect complex programming errors, comprehensive analysis tools, and competitive pricing. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is recognized for its robust threat protection, cloud service integration, and extensive security features suitable for cloud environments.

Room for Improvement: CodeSonar needs to improve GUI navigability, reduce false positives, and streamline reports for better clarity. Check Point CloudGuard WAF requires enhanced documentation, more proactive support, and optimization in setup complexity. Each has specific areas that could enhance their user experience and effectiveness.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CodeSonar offers a straightforward setup process with responsive customer support. Check Point CloudGuard WAF, while offering thorough customer service, can be more complex to deploy due to comprehensive setups. CodeSonar's ease in deployment can be an advantage in efficient setup timelines.

Pricing and ROI: CodeSonar has competitive pricing, making it attractive to budget-conscious users, and delivers substantial ROI. Check Point CloudGuard WAF, while priced higher, offers extensive features which can lead to significant ROI when fully utilized. CodeSonar's budget-friendly approach contrasts Check Point's costlier, feature-rich investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,566 peers since 2012

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 WAF

Ranking in Application Security Tools

7th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (10th)

CodeSonar

Ranking in Application Security Tools

30th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (10th)

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 CodeSonar is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF	0.3%
CodeSonar	1.5%
Other	98.2%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Dialungana Malungo

Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.

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.

Read full review

Mathieu ALBRESPY

Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel

Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand

This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It helps me sleep at night, providing peace of mind."

"One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard."

"The portal is quite intuitive."

"The solution's strongest point is that you can connect everything to it, giving you a full view of what's connected."

"The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its rich logging capabilities."

"The tool performs device health checkups and updates us. It helps us to be compliant with regulatory policies."

"The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage."

"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."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."

"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."

"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."

"It has been able to scale."

Cons

"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."

"The creation of security profiles for each application takes a lot of time."

"There are occasions when it interfaces with other systems, leading to a loss of visibility."

"Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability."

"Pricing and licensing are really expensive for this product. While it provides a very good security level, the price for each service is high."

"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations."

"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."

"It was costlier than other solutions."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."

"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."

"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."

"It was expensive."

"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."

"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

"The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."

"As Infiniti customers, the pricing is manageable, as we have allowances dedicated to each Check Point product. The price is not as high compared to other options I have dealt with in the past."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."

"If the pricing for the Infinity platform covers everything, it would be more straightforward. I had a hard time selling it to our CEO as a former CFO because of the differentials. There are different deltas year to year over a five-year period. It is very difficult to explain. It would be easier to digest for our executives if there was a flatter scale"

"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."

"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Manufacturing Company

23%

University

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	25
Midsize Enterprise	18
Large Enterprise	16

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	2

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 19% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 14% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% of the time

open-appsec vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs CodeSonar

Compared 43% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 26% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 8% of the time

Axivion Static Code Analysis vs CodeSonar

Compared 4% of the time

Helix QAC vs CodeSonar

Compared 4% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

October 2025

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

September 2025

Download CodeSonar product report

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec

No data available

Overview

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers advanced security for web applications and APIs with features such as intrusion prevention, bot prevention, and AI-driven threat detection, ensuring organizations achieve high-level protection and efficient security management.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF integrates with APIs, providing a seamless security enhancement while reducing false positives. Its scalability supports rapid deployment, valuable for companies aiming to secure resources in clouds like AWS and Azure. Enhanced threat prevention, comprehensive compliance support, and advanced threat protection methods such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting prevention are key strengths. Despite its robust capabilities, there are opportunities for improvement, such as lower costs, improved third-party tool integration, and a more intuitive interface to enhance usability.

What are the key features of Check Point CloudGuard WAF?

Intrusion Prevention System: Effectively detects and blocks unauthorized access attempts.
Bot Prevention: Shields applications from malicious bot traffic.
AI-driven Threat Detection: Uses advanced algorithms to identify and mitigate threats.
Log Management: Offers extensive logging capabilities for tracking and analysis.
Scalability: Supports rapid deployment across different environments, including multi-cloud.

What benefits should users expect from Check Point CloudGuard WAF?

Security Efficiency: Combines high-grade protection with ease of use to simplify security management.
Cost Efficiency: Aids in effective resource utilization, minimizing overhead.
Compliance Support: Helps meet various industry standards effortlessly.
Enhanced Threat Protection: Provides robust safeguards against common web vulnerabilities.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is predominantly applied within industries requiring stringent security standards, such as financial services, healthcare, and e-commerce. Its deployment strengthens the defense of critical APIs, facilitates compliance, and supports efficient multi-cloud security management, aligning well with evolving industry demands.

Check Point Software Technologies

GrammaTech enables organizations to develop software applications more efficiently, on-budget, and on-schedule by helping to eliminate harmful defects that can cause system failures, enable data breaches, and ultimately increase corporate liabilities in today’s connected world. GrammaTech is the developer of CodeSonar, the most powerful source and binary code analysis solution available today. Extraordinarily precise, CodeSonar finds, on average, 2 times more serious defects in software than other static analysis solutions. Designed for organizations with zero tolerance for defects and vulnerabilities in their applications, CodeSonar provides static analysis for applications where reliability and security are paramount - widely used by software developers in avionics, medical, automotive, industrial control, and other mission-critical applications. Some of GrammaTech's customers include Toyota, GE, Hyundai, Kawasaki, LG, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic, and Samsung.

CodeSecure

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar

September 2025

Free Report: Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar report.

See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.