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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Fortify on Demand 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
8th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)
Fortify on Demand
Ranking in Application Security Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 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 on Demand is 4.3%, down from 5.0% 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.
Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis
Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution's strongest point is that you can connect everything to it, giving you a full view of what's connected."
"Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security."
"CloudGuard WAF has been great."
"The solution offers continuous security monitoring and alerting, which can help organizations detect and respond to security incidents in real time."
"Support is the same with on-premise devices, and it is very good. Since it is cloud-based, I do not need them as much."
"By using a cloud application security solution, our company can save costs by reducing the need for additional security hardware and software and improving operational efficiency."
"The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature."
"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."
"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"The solution is user-friendly. One feature I find very effective is the tool's automatic scanning capability. It scans replicas of the code developers write and automatically detects any vulnerabilities. The integration with CI/CD tools is also useful for plugins."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."
 

Cons

"One of the big problems we found in Check Point, in general, is the support."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."
"Cost reduction and trial period extension should be considered with some lucrative discount offerings in buying standard versions."
"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."
"When I migrate the traffic from our mobile application to CloudGuard, we are not getting what we expected."
"I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further."
"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as password exposure."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"Reporting could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 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 base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"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."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage. Also, while the documentation is comprehensive, it can be diffi...
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as passw...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Fortify on Demand and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.