No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs GitHub Advanced Security 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
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
55
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (8th)
GitHub Advanced Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 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 GitHub Advanced Security is 3.9%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.5%
GitHub Advanced Security3.9%
Other95.6%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

MK
CISO at Pink Solutions
Cloud security has strengthened risk posture and improved advanced threat visibility
There are some API gateway and API securities I mentioned. If these are incorporated with AI-related features, particularly those seven key vulnerabilities I mentioned—token theft and tool poisoning—that would be beneficial. AI-related features are not included yet in Check Point CloudGuard WAF. However, they are present in FortiGate. That is the advantage of FortiGate now. FortiGate is stopping all AI-related vulnerabilities now. FortiGate has this capability. It is unfortunate that even Palo Alto also lacks one or two of these features. Check Point Quantum is very good, without a doubt. However, their capabilities are not in comparison with Palo Alto. There are some features, but there are some gaps in comparison with Palo Alto.
Devendiran Kandan - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Security scanning has protected our pipelines but currently needs clearer dashboards and controls
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inline product, I'm not seeing user-friendly things in GitHub Advanced Security. Dependent bots and the secret detection are good compared to others. However, code scanning is not finding very good results based on pipeline where it will scan and do code scanning. While build, before building and deploying the code, we want to block or do an advanced model, but it is not supporting. During deployment, code scanning is not good. It is a little complicated. It is not a straightforward method we can complete. We need expertise to get the full benefit, and troubleshooting sometimes requires going through that. The security overview dashboard is not really clear. It's not showing centralized information; each repo is showing, but if you compare it with competitors, it is not that great. Mainly in the centralized dashboard, enterprise level needs to improve. A centralized way where we can get that overall view is needed, and we want that code scanning and blocking deployments based on security. There are AI improvements, but however, it is not so easy to configure. It is multiple windows we need to go through and make changes or configure that. A few things we need to enable going into settings, and a few things we can find out in security. One product where security means the security dashboard should cover everything, but it is going here and there in many places.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security enabled us to develop strength and process efficiency coupled with a secure environment in the IT system."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving both security and operational efficiency, with a noticeable reduction in web-based threats, especially automated attacks and vulnerability exploits, thanks to its real-time prevention and reputation filter that has streamlined my workflow through automatic policy updates and integration smoothly with my CI/CD pipelines, allowing my DevOps teams to deploy security without delays."
"The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature."
"The solution's strongest point is that you can connect everything to it, giving you a full view of what's connected."
"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF delivers clear efficiency gains over traditional WAFs in three main areas: operations, accuracy, and cost optimization."
"The tool helps us to block IPs and applications."
"GitHub Advanced Security's secret scanning is good."
"GitHub Advanced Security uses artificial intelligence in the backend, specifically CodeQL, to analyze code and provide fewer but more reliable findings, so there are less false positives."
"The initial setup was straightforward and completed in a matter of minutes."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"The best features of GitHub Advanced Security are its flexibility and the multiple options it has compared to other tools."
"GitHub Advanced Security is a very developer-friendly solution that is integrated within my development environment."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
 

Cons

"One of the big problems we found in Check Point, in general, is the support."
"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."
"Deeper and more transparent integration between Cloud Application Security and analysis monitoring tools could be very valuable - although the solution currently offers integrations with third-party security tools."
"The User interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."
"We would like to have a solution of this type for the administration of applications from mobile devices."
"It doesn't detect user activity like some of its competitors. It's not a vulnerability, but it's a legitimate activity that it doesn't detect. It only detects vulnerabilities or misconfigurations."
"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 advise proactive threat detection intelligence offline, which can also help monitor and ensure system checks and compliances are in place."
"An area of GitHub Advanced Security that has room for improvement is customization."
"Open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
"Maybe make it compatible with more programming languages. Have a customized ruleset where the end-user can create their own rules for scanning."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"For GitHub Advanced Security, I would like to see more support for various programming languages."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"GitHub Advanced Security should look into API security issues, which they currently do not. Additionally, open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"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."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"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 current licensing model, which relies on active commitments, poses challenges, particularly in predicting and managing growth."
"The solution is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
26%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business36
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
 

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?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive. It is a little bit expensive. You cannot avoid this from an Israeli product. Israeli products follow a certain pricing model. If they could reduce the cost ...
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
There are some API gateway and API securities I mentioned. If these are incorporated with AI-related features, particularly those seven key vulnerabilities I mentioned—token theft and tool poisonin...
What needs improvement with GitHub Advanced Security?
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inli...
What is your primary use case for GitHub Advanced Security?
I'm working with software development nowadays. As a process, we are using the dependent bot alerts and the code scanning for Java, and some of the code scanning is happening. Security secrets in c...
What advice do you have for others considering GitHub Advanced Security?
Dependent bots and the secret detection are good compared to others. However, code scanning is not finding very good results based on pipeline where it will scan and do code scanning. While build, ...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. GitHub Advanced Security and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.