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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs GitGuardian Public Monitoring 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
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)
GitGuardian Public Monitoring
Ranking in Application Security Tools
23rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (18th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (23rd), Threat Intelligence Platforms (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 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 GitGuardian Public Monitoring is 0.2%, up from 0.1% 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.
Theo Cusnir - PeerSpot reviewer
Detects and alerts us about leaks quickly, and enables us to filter and prioritize occurrences
One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository. For example, if I put "Payfit" in the tool, I will be alerted every time someone is committing with that word in the code. It's really useful for internal domain names, to detect if someone is leaking internal code. With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots. It can detect a leak in 10 minutes. We had an experience with one of our engineers who had leaked a secret, and 10 minutes afterward we had a warning from GitGuardian about the leak. It's very effective. We looked at the commit date and the current date with hours and minutes and we could see that the commit had been made 10 minutes ago. As a result, we are sure it is pretty fast. Another feature, one that helps prioritize remediation, is that you can filter the findings by criticality. That definitely helps us to prioritize which secrets we should rotate and delete.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The DirectStorage gives me a vision that I did not have of the check that occurs on the web servers."
"The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments."
"I have thousands of exposed websites and APIs. Being able to control what is happening and try to prevent any attack is the best feature."
"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."
"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."
"It offers good functionality of the application that is currently running."
"Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."
"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."
"The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."
"One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository... With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots."
 

Cons

"One of the big problems we found in Check Point, in general, is the support."
"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."
"They need improved latency in the main window."
"I feel like I need more clarity in understanding pricing for DDoS protection."
"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."
"I advise proactive threat detection intelligence offline, which can also help monitor and ensure system checks and compliances are in place."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"I do not know if it is already there, but I would like to have complete visibility between the posture management and firewall as a service."
"I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers."
"I would like to see improvement in some of the user interface features... When one secret is leaked in multiple files or multiple repositories, it will appear on the dashboard. But when you click on that secret, all the occurrences will appear on the page. It would be better to have one secret per occurrence, directly, so that we don't have to click to get to the list of all the occurrences."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"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 pricing is not that expensive considering what it offers."
"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"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"
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"It's a bit expensive, but it works well. You get what you pay for."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
7%
Government
20%
Energy/Utilities Company
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
I am less knowledgeable with prices because I only define the requirements and look at the execution. I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits ...
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
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 foc...
What do you like most about GitGuardian Public Monitoring?
The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for.
What needs improvement with GitGuardian Public Monitoring?
I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems...
What is your primary use case for GitGuardian Public Monitoring?
We use GitGuardian Public Monitoring for code that is exposed in public.
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Align Technology, Automox, Fred Hutch, Instacart, Maven Wave, Mirantis, SafetyCulture, Snowflake, Talend
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. GitGuardian Public Monitoring and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.