GitGuardian Platform and Check Point CloudGuard WAF both compete in the realm of security solutions, with GitGuardian focusing on secrets detection and CloudGuard WAF emphasizing application and cloud security. GitGuardian leads in rapid remediation, while CloudGuard WAF shows strength in minimal false positives and secure container management.
Features: GitGuardian Platform excels with internal secrets monitoring, proactive alerts, and deep integrations. The quick remediation and developer feedback loop are noteworthy. CloudGuard WAF's strengths include advanced intrusion prevention and robust bot defenses, complemented by effective container security and a low rate of false positives.
Room for Improvement: GitGuardian could improve custom identifier capabilities and logging management, along with enhancing developer access and historical scan automation. CloudGuard WAF needs easier integration processes, better support documentation, and UI consistency, alongside addressing pricing complexity and latency.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GitGuardian is easily deployed across on-premises and cloud environments, with users praising its straightforward integration and responsive support. CloudGuard WAF supports diverse environments effectively but could enhance its support response times and onboarding processes for better deployment experiences.
Pricing and ROI: GitGuardian's pricing is seen as high but justifiable due to its efficiency and improved security posture, yielding significant ROI by reducing remediation time. CloudGuard WAF offers competitive yet complex pricing with beneficial security enhancements that enhance ROI despite the initial high cost. Both solutions alleviate resource burdens by optimizing incident handling times.
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
I can certainly say that we have saved significant time and resources in terms of people and automation.
The majority of our incidents for critical detectors and important secret types are remediated automatically or proactively by developers through GitGuardian's notification system, without security team involvement.
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
It effectively helps us with credentials security and has been performing satisfactorily.
I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten.
I would rate the technical support as excellent.
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
It handles increasing traffic easily because we can extend our demands based on our needs.
In terms of scalability, I would rate it around a ten out of ten, as it handles all the repositories and commit activity we have.
I would rate it a ten out of ten for scalability.
Currently, what GitGuardian Platform is doing works effectively.
It is very stable.
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
We set up a lot of the repository, so GitGuardian is a required check.
The SaaS platform has experienced two significant moments of downtime or instability in the last six months, requiring notices and retrospectives.
I would rate the stability of the GitGuardian Platform as excellent with no downtimes.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
It's not something you manipulate, it's not an antivirus where you deal with signatures, updates, and upgrades every day.
I would say that the more automation this product has, the easier it will be to work with it.
Another thing that would be good to see is some more metrics on the usage of the GitGuardian pre-push hooks.
The self-healing activity by developers isn't reflected in the analytics, requiring us to collect this data ourselves.
We are looking for better metrics and audit data, wanting more features such as knowing which users are creating the most secrets or committing the most secrets, what repository, what directory, and who is not checking in secrets.
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.
It's fairly priced, as it performs a lot of analysis and is a valuable tool.
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
One of the best features of the solution is the ability to use pre-push hooks.
A high number of our exposures are remediated by developers before security needs to step in, as the self-healing playbook process engages them automatically.
GitGuardian Platform performs the capability to detect secrets in real time exceptionally, as it activates from the commit and can detect it immediately.
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?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.
GitGuardian is an advanced secrets security platform that strengthens Non-Human Identity security and ensures compliance with industry standards by detecting and managing secrets in development environments.
GitGuardian integrates Secrets Security and Secrets Observability, facilitating the detection of compromised secrets and managing legitimate secrets' lifecycle. Supporting over 450 types of secrets, the platform offers public monitoring for leaked data and employs honeytokens as an added defense. Trusted by over 600,000 developers, organizations such as Snowflake and ING rely on GitGuardian for robust secrets protection.
What features define GitGuardian?In sectors like healthcare and telecommunications, GitGuardian is implemented for detecting and managing the exposure of sensitive information in code repositories. Teams benefit from its ability to integrate with platforms such as GitHub, allowing for immediate alerts and efficient remediation of security risks, enhancing application security by safeguarding operational environments.
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.