We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard WAF and GitGuardian Public Monitoring based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The app control is very sensitive, and the threat detection and prevention is better than other Check Point solutions. There is a centralized management console for threat protection and self-inspection."
"It provides advanced analytics that gives each team time to prepare for any threat that might occur in the future."
"Its main value and what we liked the most is its powerful AI."
"It seamlessly protects through machine learning, giving us visibility into potential attacks and where they come from."
"I find the configuration and real-time monitoring features valuable."
"Its ability to adapt to our applications and ensure our security policies are followed is a big plus."
"It offers good functionality of the application that is currently running."
"They offer free trials, which is quite appreciative and grabs more attention from new users and businesses."
"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."
"I feel like I need more clarity in understanding pricing for DDoS protection."
"There should be automation of threat detection, risk mitigation, and report generation."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"I have faced issues with the tool's blocking aspects. It is hard to open or block web services due to the multitude of cloud centers. I have to do the process manually at times. We have a bug which is hard to solve."
"The creation of security profiles for each application takes a lot of time."
"We would like the solution to be more economical since it is not accessible to all clients."
"They need improved latency in the main window."
"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."
"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."
More GitGuardian Public Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 30 reviews while GitGuardian Public Monitoring is ranked 27th in Application Security Tools with 2 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is rated 9.0, while GitGuardian Public Monitoring is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard WAF writes "Automation capabilities also help streamline security processes and smooths down API integration processes and detects API availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitGuardian Public Monitoring writes "Helps us prioritize remediation tasks efficiently, improves our overall security visibility, and is effective in detecting and alerting us to security leaks quickly". Check Point CloudGuard WAF is most compared with SonarQube and Checkmarx One, whereas GitGuardian Public Monitoring is most compared with Snyk. See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. GitGuardian Public Monitoring 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.