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 #10 with an average rating of 8.7, while CodeSecure is ranked #34 with an average rating of 7.0. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.1% 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 46 Check Point CloudGuard WAF reviews

255 Views
114 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

1,855 Views
1,189 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: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. CodeSonar

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

10th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)

CodeSonar

Ranking in Application Security Tools

34th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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 seamlessly protects through machine learning, giving us visibility into potential attacks and where they come from."

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

"Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."

"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."

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

"It is a highly scalable solution with a quick turnaround time for deployment and running of the software across any IT system."

"I have thousands of exposed websites and APIs. Being able to control what is happening and try to prevent any attack is the best feature."

"User attitude reviews help us keep all online users compliant with company regulations and policies."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"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."

"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."

"It has been able to scale."

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

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

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

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

Cons

"The coding configurations can be simplified to save time for IT teams and developers."

"The reporting can be improved."

"I would like it to be able to analyze more complex functions, although I did not examine the case study of more complex implementations. Things like forum fields, etc seem to need a little more focused protection of the fields scheme validation."

"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."

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

"I feel like I need more clarity in understanding pricing for DDoS protection."

"I do not know if it is already there, but I would like to have complete visibility between the posture management and firewall as a service."

"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"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."

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

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

"It was expensive."

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

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

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."

"The pricing is not that expensive considering what it offers."

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

"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."

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

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

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

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Government

Manufacturing Company

25%

Computer Software Company

13%

University

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 am less knowledgeable with prices because I only define the requirements and look at the execution. I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?

I would like it to be able to analyze more complex functions, although I did not examine the case study of more complex implementations. Things like forum fields, etc seem to need a little more foc...

See all answers

What do you like most about CodeSonar?

CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CodeSonar?

The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools. I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with CodeSonar?

Our license model allows one user per license. Currently, we have limitations for VPN profiles. We can’t share the key with other users. There could be a shared licensing model for the users. It wi...

See all answers

Comparisons

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 19% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 17% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 13% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% 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 60% of the time

Coverity vs CodeSonar

Compared 21% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 8% of the time

Klocwork vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

Understand vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

April 2025

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

April 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 (Web Application Firewall) is a cloud-native security solution designed to protect web applications and APIs from known and unknown threats. It employs contextual AI and machine learning to prevent zero-day attacks without relying on traditional signature-based detection methods, ensuring that applications remain secure even as new threats emerge.

CloudGuard WAF offers preemptive protection against vulnerabilities by using machine learning to identify and block zero-day threats like Log4Shell and Spring4Shell. It provides precise detection capabilities, minimizing the need for constant fine-tuning and reducing false positives. Designed for cloud-native environments, CloudGuard WAF integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, supporting automated deployment and configuration through infrastructure as code (IaC) or APIs.

Key Features of CloudGuard WAF:

ML-Based Threat Prevention: Stops application-layer attacks, including those listed in the OWASP Top 10, with minimal tuning and no reliance on signature updates.
API Discovery and Security: Identifies and secures APIs, preventing misuse and enforcing API schemas to protect against unauthorized access.
Bot and DDoS Prevention: Detects and mitigates automated attacks that can disrupt services or degrade customer experiences.
Intrusion Prevention (IPS): Provides protection against over 2,800 web-related CVEs using Check Point’s award-winning IPS technology.

Benefits of CloudGuard WAF:

Zero-Day Protection: Mitigates risks from newly discovered vulnerabilities without waiting for signature updates.
Reduced Operational Overhead: Eliminates the need for constant manual tuning and exception handling, simplifying security management.
Comprehensive API Security: Enhances control over your attack surface by discovering and securing all APIs, including shadow, rogue, and deprecated endpoints.
Fast and Easy Deployment: Deployable within minutes via WAF as a Service (WAFaaS), requiring only a one-time DNS configuration for immediate protection.

CloudGuard WAF is particularly suitable for organizations using modern, cloud-based architectures that require robust, automated security measures for both applications and APIs. Its capabilities are valuable for industries that handle sensitive data, such as finance or healthcare, where compliance and data protection are critical. Pricing and support are typically customized to the specific needs and scale of the deployment, with options for continuous updates and maintenance through Check Point's managed services.

CloudGuard WAF by Check Point provides advanced, AI-driven protection for web applications and APIs, offering automated, precise threat prevention and easy integration with cloud-native environments, ensuring robust security without the need for extensive manual configuration.

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

April 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: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 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.