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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs HackerOne comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

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
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)
HackerOne
Ranking in Application Security Tools
26th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (39th), Bug Bounty Platforms (1st), Penetration Testing Services (1st), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 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 0.2%, 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.
Faizan Nehal - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers comprehensive monitoring and alerting for my entire VMware virtual environment."
"The tool helps us to block IPs and applications."
"They offer free trials, which is quite appreciative and grabs more attention from new users and businesses."
"User attitude reviews help us keep all online users compliant with company regulations and policies."
"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."
"The tool performs device health checkups and updates us. It helps us to be compliant with regulatory policies."
"The portal is quite intuitive."
"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."
"It helps me to get new sales, profits, and other benefits."
"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."
"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

"While the GUI allows configuration for application-related features, specific definitions cannot be modified through the code."
"I would like to be able to integrate the theme of Artificial Intelligence to help review issues and to monitor and view the security issue while also suggesting and interpreting and additionally configuring solutions - basically, acting as an interpreter."
"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."
"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."
"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."
"In terms of features, I do not have any negatives. Their integration is extremely quick. It is better than others I have been involved with in the past. Their pricing model, however, can be better."
"The coding configurations can be simplified to save time for IT teams and developers."
"The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is 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."
"The ability to view the conversation between the triagers and the programs will be really good."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"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"
"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"The solution is free."
"The tool is open-source and free for bug bounty hunters."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

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 needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
There are improvements that can be made regarding pricing since it has a high initial cost. If they could reduce that, it would be beneficial. Additionally, it has a complex initial configuration. ...
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?
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 p...
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...
 

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

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Anthropic, Crypto.com, General Motors, GitHub, Goldman Sachs, Uber, and the U.S. Department of Defense
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. HackerOne and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.