Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs HackerOne comparison

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Read 5 HackerOne reviews

82 Views
73 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 2025

HackerOne and Check Point CloudGuard WAF are key players in the cybersecurity market. HackerOne excels in bug bounty program management enhancing vulnerability discovery, whereas Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers comprehensive threat detection, suggesting CloudGuard's advanced security might lead it to have an upper hand in overall threat mitigation.

Features: HackerOne offers an extensive bug bounty program management, third-party integrations, and rapid vulnerability reporting. Check Point CloudGuard WAF features high-grade security like Intrusion Prevention System, AI-driven container security, and comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, focusing on application security and compliance.

Room for Improvement: HackerOne could enhance features for easier integrations with varying tools, improve resource allocation for bug report validation, and streamline communication with participating security teams. Check Point CloudGuard WAF might benefit from reducing the complexity of initial configuration, decreasing reliance on signature databases, and enhancing automated threat detection accuracy.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: HackerOne provides a straightforward integration within existing security frameworks coupled with responsive customer service. Check Point CloudGuard WAF's deployment is more complex due to its extensive configuration, but their strong customer support is equipped to handle technical intricacies, ensuring support during complex deployments.

Pricing and ROI: HackerOne presents a cost-effective approach with scalable pricing, offering favorable ROI through effective vulnerability management. In contrast, Check Point CloudGuard WAF necessitates a larger initial investment; however, its sophisticated security measures can potentially yield substantial long-term ROI by mitigating security risks effectively.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. HackerOne Report (Updated: April 2025).

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. HackerOne

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)

HackerOne

Ranking in Application Security Tools

30th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Vulnerability Management (38th), Bug Bounty Platforms (1st), Penetration Testing Services (1st), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (9th)

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 HackerOne is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Dialungana Malungo

Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.

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.

Read full review

Faizan Nehal

dApp Auditor at Hacken

Platform supports skill development with effective vulnerability reporting

Everything has become slower on HackerOne. I have noticed that older researchers receive all the private invites while newer ones receive fewer. The same goes for real-life events, where the same people are invited repeatedly. There are no clear guidelines for being invited to programs and conferences, and the process for receiving invitations appears arbitrary.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It provides security for our customers and our products."

"CloudGuard WAF has been great."

"The tool's most valuable feature is AI, which makes operations easier. Moreover, it is easy to deploy."

"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."

"It seamlessly protects through machine learning, giving us visibility into potential attacks and where they come from."

"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."

"It is a very scalable and stable solution."

"The portal is quite intuitive."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"The most valuable feature of HackerOne is its variety of programs. These programs provide depth into various areas, such as mobile, API, and websites."

"HackerOne is larger than WebCloud and has a better reputation than BugCloud, which results in a smoother process."

"It helps me to get new sales, profits, and other benefits."

"Apart from getting all the bug bounty opportunities, we also get the chance to practice in a safe environment, like a demo setup. These features are great for beginners who want to explore bug bounties in the future."

"HackerOne is larger than WebCloud and has a better reputation than BugCloud, which results in a smoother process."

Cons

"We are satisfied with the product because it does what we need it to do, but one thing that I would like to see improved in the product is the protection of our mobile applications. When I migrate the traffic from our mobile application to CloudGuard, we are not getting what we expected."

"For now, the product is doing all that I need, however, I need the support of IPv6."

"The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good."

"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations."

"The reporting can be improved."

"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 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."

"The trial version should be extended further so that QA test engineers can actually test the utilities in a real sense and can provide the maximum amount of feedback for enhancements."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"Response time can be improved. The HackerOne Trust team can be slow to respond sometimes. They're not using AI, which could help reduce the number of duplicate reports."

"One issue I've experienced is traffic. Many people try to participate when an opportunity with a bounty of around 1,000-15,000 dollars comes up. In this case, the first person to report the vulnerability gets the bounty. If a second person reports the same vulnerability, they are marked as duplicated instead of receiving some recognition. The second person also invested time finding the issue, so I think this can be improved."

"The ability to view the conversation between the triagers and the programs will be really good."

"Everything has become slower on HackerOne."

"Everything has become slower on HackerOne. I have noticed that older researchers receive all the private invites while newer ones receive fewer."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."

"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."

"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."

"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."

"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 pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"The solution is free."

"The tool is open-source and free for bug bounty hunters."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

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

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for HackerOne?

The cost is rated as one since there is no need to pay anything, not even a fee or commission.

What needs improvement with HackerOne?

What is your primary use case for HackerOne?

My use case is similar to DuckTron. The processes I use for DuckTron are exactly the same for HackerOne. Therefore, there isn't much of a difference. I use HackerOne for finding vulnerabilities and...

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Comparisons

Compared 19% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 17% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 13% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% of the time

open-appsec vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

Bugcrowd vs HackerOne

Compared 41% of the time

Intigriti vs HackerOne

Compared 20% of the time

Synack vs HackerOne

Compared 15% of the time

YesWeHack vs HackerOne

Compared 12% of the time

Cobalt vs HackerOne

Compared 4% of the time

More HackerOne Competitors

Product Reports

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Download HackerOne product report

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec

HackerOne Assets, HackerOne Pentesting Services, HackerOne Security Assessments, HackerOne Vulnerability Management

Overview

Check Point CloudGuard WAF (Web Application Firewall) is a cloud-native security solution designed to protect web applications and APIs from known and unknown threats. It employs contextual AI and machine learning to prevent zero-day attacks without relying on traditional signature-based detection methods, ensuring that applications remain secure even as new threats emerge.

CloudGuard WAF offers preemptive protection against vulnerabilities by using machine learning to identify and block zero-day threats like Log4Shell and Spring4Shell. It provides precise detection capabilities, minimizing the need for constant fine-tuning and reducing false positives. Designed for cloud-native environments, CloudGuard WAF integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, supporting automated deployment and configuration through infrastructure as code (IaC) or APIs.

Key Features of CloudGuard WAF:

ML-Based Threat Prevention: Stops application-layer attacks, including those listed in the OWASP Top 10, with minimal tuning and no reliance on signature updates.
API Discovery and Security: Identifies and secures APIs, preventing misuse and enforcing API schemas to protect against unauthorized access.
Bot and DDoS Prevention: Detects and mitigates automated attacks that can disrupt services or degrade customer experiences.
Intrusion Prevention (IPS): Provides protection against over 2,800 web-related CVEs using Check Point’s award-winning IPS technology.

Benefits of CloudGuard WAF:

Zero-Day Protection: Mitigates risks from newly discovered vulnerabilities without waiting for signature updates.
Reduced Operational Overhead: Eliminates the need for constant manual tuning and exception handling, simplifying security management.
Comprehensive API Security: Enhances control over your attack surface by discovering and securing all APIs, including shadow, rogue, and deprecated endpoints.
Fast and Easy Deployment: Deployable within minutes via WAF as a Service (WAFaaS), requiring only a one-time DNS configuration for immediate protection.

CloudGuard WAF is particularly suitable for organizations using modern, cloud-based architectures that require robust, automated security measures for both applications and APIs. Its capabilities are valuable for industries that handle sensitive data, such as finance or healthcare, where compliance and data protection are critical. Pricing and support are typically customized to the specific needs and scale of the deployment, with options for continuous updates and maintenance through Check Point's managed services.

CloudGuard WAF by Check Point provides advanced, AI-driven protection for web applications and APIs, offering automated, precise threat prevention and easy integration with cloud-native environments, ensuring robust security without the need for extensive manual configuration.

Check Point Software Technologies

HackerOne becomes your partner who executes all aspects of your bug bounty program, including triage, bounty pricing, and hacker relations, allowing you to fully focus on fixing vulnerabilities.

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Zenefits, Adobe, Yelp

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. HackerOne