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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Fortify Application Defender 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)
Fortify Application Defender
Ranking in Application Security Tools
25th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 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 Fortify Application Defender is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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.
Saroj-Patnaik - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable solution with excellent machine learning algorithms but expensive and lacking support
I primarily use Fortify Application Defender to assess whether our products can defend against applications Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications. Fortify Application Defender gives…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce the cost of ownership for our web application firewall by 50%."
"The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities."
"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."
"With the solution, we managed to obtain complete comprehensive visibility of the entire environment in the cloud, thus having better control of each of the resources."
"The portal is quite intuitive."
"The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers comprehensive monitoring and alerting for my entire VMware virtual environment."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"The product saves us cost and time."
 

Cons

"Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability."
"There are occasions when it interfaces with other systems, leading to a loss of visibility."
"If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product."
"I would like to be able to integrate the theme of Artificial Intelligence to help review issues and to monitor and view the security issue while also suggesting and interpreting and additionally configuring solutions - basically, acting as an interpreter."
"One of the big problems we found in Check Point, in general, is the support."
"A feature we'd like to see in the future is something that could protect against other attack vectors, with a focus on application protection."
"I advise proactive threat detection intelligence offline, which can also help monitor and ensure system checks and compliances are in place."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF could benefit from an enhanced user interface as it can be a bit complex and overwhelming for new users."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The solution is quite expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"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 not friendly."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive."
"The product’s price is much higher than other tools."
"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."
"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."
"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten. It comes as an annual cloud subscription. The tool's pricing is around 50 lakhs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
9%
 

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.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
There are improvements that can be made regarding pricing since it has a high initial cost. If they could reduce that, it would be beneficial. Additionally, it has a complex initial configuration. ...
What do you like most about Fortify Application Defender?
I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy.
What needs improvement with Fortify Application Defender?
The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and...
What is your primary use case for Fortify Application Defender?
We use the solution for fast code review. It is integrated into our DevOps pipeline.
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.