Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Contrast Security Assess comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and Contrast Security are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.9, while Contrast Security is ranked #30. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.5% mindshare in AS, compared to Contrast Security’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Contrast Security users who would recommend it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Read 51 Check Point CloudGuard WAF reviews

2,502 Views
626 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

1,722 Views
1,119 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Contrast Security Assess

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Contrast Security Assess and Check Point CloudGuard WAF compete in the security tools category. Check Point CloudGuard WAF seems to have the upper hand with its superior features highlighted in user reviews, despite a more complex deployment process.

Features: Contrast Security Assess offers strong application security insights, seamless integration capabilities, and ease of use. Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides comprehensive threat protection, high flexibility across various environments, and an array of advanced features catering to wider security needs.

Room for Improvement: Contrast Security Assess could improve in reporting, analytics, and in-depth threat detection. Check Point CloudGuard WAF would benefit from enhancing customization, refining alerting features, and simplifying user interface complexity.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Contrast Security Assess is favored for simple setup and responsive support. Check Point CloudGuard WAF has a complex deployment but is backed by reliable customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Contrast Security Assess is budget-friendly, offering good ROI and manageable startup costs. Check Point CloudGuard WAF requires a higher investment but delivers a higher perceived ROI due to its advanced security capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Contrast Security Assess Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Contrast Security Assess

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,853 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

5th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (9th)

Contrast Security Assess

Ranking in Application Security Tools

30th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (28th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Contrast Security Assess is 1.1%, up from 0.5% 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	0.5%
Contrast Security Assess	1.1%
Other	98.4%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer2751468

Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 201-500 employees

Robust threat protection improves security and operational efficiency

Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex. More guided workflows or templates would help speed up deployment, along with deeper integration with the DevOps pipeline, and while it handles API well, more dedicated API security would add value. In addition, it could be improved with better integration with the DevOps pipeline, more granular reporting, as the dashboards provide good high-level visibility, but sometimes digging into specific attack patterns or trends requires manual effort, and simple tuning of the ML models would be beneficial.

Read full review

reviewer1605099

Director of Threat and Vulnerability Management at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees

We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications

The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of. Assess also provides the option of helping developers incorporate security elements while they're writing code. It depends on whether individual developers decide to utilize the information that's provided to them from the solution, but it definitely gives them visibility into more environments. It gives them an opportunity to remediate vulnerabilities well before production deployments.

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

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

"The ability to preemptively block zero day attacks and detect hidden anomalies is exactly its advantage."

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

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

"The integration with other Microsoft products, especially Visual Studio, is seamless."

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

"They offer free trials, which is quite appreciative and grabs more attention from new users and businesses."

"It is a very scalable and stable solution."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"This has changed the way that developers are looking at usage of third-party libraries, upfront. It's changing our model of development and our culture of development to ensure that there is more thought being put into the usage of third-party libraries."

"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."

"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable feature is the continuous monitoring aspect: the fact that we don't have to wait for scans to complete for the tool to identify vulnerabilities. They're automatically identified through developers' business-as-usual processes."

"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."

"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."

"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."

"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

Cons

"Cost reduction and trial period extension should be considered with some lucrative discount offerings in buying standard versions."

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

"The user interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."

"They need improved latency in the main window."

"It was costlier than other solutions."

"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation."

"You need to know exactly the system. You cannot have someone running the system if they don't have the knowledge to do so."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."

"Contrast Security Assess covers a wide range of applications like .NET Framework, Java, PSP, Node.js, etc. But there are some like Ubuntu and the .NET Core which are not covered. They have it in their roadmap to have these agents. If they have that, we will have complete coverage."

"The product's retesting part needs improvement. The tool also needs improvement in the suggestions provided for fixing vulnerabilities. It relies more on documentation rather than on quick fixes."

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."

"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."

"Contrast's ability to support upgrades on the actual agents that get deployed is limited. Our environment is pretty much entirely Java. There are no updates associated with that. You have to actually download a new version of the .jar file and push that out to your servers where your app is hosted. That can be quite cumbersome from a change-management perspective."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."

"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."

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

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

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

"I work for an Indian banking client. In India, companies are on a budget. The company liked Check Point very much, but it was a little bit costly compared to FortiWeb. However, it had more features compared to FortiWeb."

"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"

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"The solution is expensive."

"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."

"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."

"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."

"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."

"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."

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

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

19%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

Security Firm

Financial Services Firm

24%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	19
Large Enterprise	16

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

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?

The setup cost was taken with the head of the department, who handled the pricing and everything.

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?

Currently, there is nothing in the areas of Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I would like to see improved or enhanced in the future. If there is anything in the roadmap, I would definitely like to t...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 13% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 9% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 10% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 6% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 6% of the time

Seeker Interactive vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 6% of the time

Digital.ai Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

January 2026

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess

January 2026

Download Contrast Security Assess product report

Also Known As

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

Contrast Assess

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

Contrast Security is the world’s leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.

Contrast Security

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Contrast Security Assess

December 2025

Free Report: Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Contrast Security Assess

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Contrast Security Assess and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Contrast Security Assess 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.