Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Fortify Application Defender comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.9, while OpenText is ranked #24 with an average rating of 8.0. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.5% mindshare in AS, compared to OpenText’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 81% of OpenText 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

Fortify Application Defender

Read 11 Fortify Application Defender reviews

1,378 Views
1,116 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Fortify Application Defender

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Fortify Application Defender and Check Point CloudGuard WAF compete in the application security category. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is perceived as having the upper hand due to its extensive features and enhanced security posture, outweighing Fortify’s pricing and support advantages.

Features: Fortify Application Defender is known for powerful threat detection, ease of integration, and flexibility. Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers comprehensive protection, advanced threat intelligence, and enhanced security.

Room for Improvement: Fortify Application Defender is noted for needing improved reporting, scalability, and integration with additional platforms. Check Point CloudGuard WAF could enhance customization, configuration tools, and interface usability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Fortify Application Defender provides straightforward deployment and responsive support. Check Point CloudGuard WAF allows for efficient deployment but garners mixed reviews regarding customer service responsiveness.

Pricing and ROI: Fortify Application Defender offers competitive setup costs and strong ROI, appealing to budget-constrained users. Check Point CloudGuard WAF justifies higher setup costs with long-term ROI and feature richness, drawing users seeking comprehensive solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender

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)

Fortify Application Defender

Ranking in Application Security Tools

24th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

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 Fortify Application Defender is 1.1%, up from 0.7% 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%
Fortify Application Defender	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

VinothSivam

CTO at Abcl

Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. However, I'm concerned about how it handles an increasing number of lines of code. As the complexity grows, so does the time it takes for the tool to review everything. I want more clarity on how Fortify Application Defender handles multiple threats. We have numerous endpoints, but the tool runs in our pipeline, meaning it operates in the cloud. All our code is configured there, and the tool runs integration testing, unit testing, user testing, and final production code tests. It's a day-to-day experience. It's utilized almost every day as part of our pipeline runs. Each team responsible for integration testing, human testing, user access testing, and preproduction testing runs it whenever they take a build.

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

"The main benefits that I have seen from using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is that the security posture is very good, it analyzes and delivers the threats, enriches the intelligence, and I get proper clarity in my organization."

"Its main value and what we liked the most is its powerful AI."

"The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies."

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

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

"On the endpoint side, the most valuable feature is undoubtedly the cloud-based management capability, along with the ransomware protection, despite not encountering any instances so far."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has improved our organization by providing protection against web application attacks such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and bot threats."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."

"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."

"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."

"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 product saves us cost and time."

"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."

"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."

More Fortify Application Defender pros

Cons

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

"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."

"CloudGuard WAF could improve UI simplicity, reduce false positives, and enhance policy management."

"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 that, it is fine."

"If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product."

"For now, the product is doing all that I need, however, I need the support of IPv6."

"The reporting can be improved."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"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."

"The solution is quite expensive."

"The false positive rate should be lower."

"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."

"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."

"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."

"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."

More Fortify Application Defender cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

"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"

"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."

"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."

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

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

"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."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"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."

"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."

"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 product’s price is much higher than other tools."

"The price of this solution could be less expensive."

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

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Government

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	3
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	8

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

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 16% of the time

SonarQube vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 10% of the time

Coverity Static vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 8% of the time

Klocwork vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 6% of the time

CAST Application Intelligence Platform vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 6% of the time

More Fortify Application Defender Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

January 2026

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

January 2026

Download Fortify Application Defender product report

Also Known As

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

HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender

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

Micro Focus Security Fortify Application Defender is a runtime application self-protection (RASP) solution that helps you manage and mitigate risk from homegrown or third-party applications. It provides centralized visibility into application use and abuse while protecting from software vulnerability exploits and other violations in real time.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender

December 2025

Free Report: Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify Application Defender 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.