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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers 70-90% ROI by enhancing security, reducing costs, and improving NIST compliance and efficiency.
Sentiment score
3.5
OpenText Core enhances security by proactively reducing risks and saving time, ensuring operational continuity and data protection.
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Manager, Managed Security Services at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers strong support with skilled staff, though response times and performance could improve.
Sentiment score
4.8
OpenText Core Application Security support is effective but mixed, with slow responses and communication gaps affecting issue resolution.
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
Support tickets often stay open for one month to three months, which leads to customer frustration.
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
I had direct interaction with them, which facilitated how we onboarded Fortify.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is praised for seamless scalability, adaptability, and multi-cloud compatibility, with flexible traffic-based licensing.
Sentiment score
6.9
OpenText Core Application Security is praised for scalability and enterprise adaptability, though pricing flexibility presents challenges for some users.
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
Project Manager at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Check Point CloudGuard WAF's scalability is very good.
Sr. VP of Creative & Development at a non-tech company with 51-200 employees
If a customer wants to know the tools and the technology used for their application to scan their application, they provide less information on that.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers impressive stability, with users praising its reliability, minimal downtime, and quick resolution of update issues.
Sentiment score
8.8
OpenText Core is reliable and stable, with occasional resource issues and high system requirements, often rated 7-10/10.
It is very stable.
Team Leader, Cloudops & Cloud Architect at a consultancy with 501-1,000 employees
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
Sysadmin at a government with 501-1,000 employees
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point CloudGuard WAF users seek cost-effectiveness, better support, enhanced performance, real-time monitoring, streamlined integration, and improved flexibility.
OpenText Core needs improved reporting, integration, automation, language support, pricing clarity, CI/CD features, and enhanced interface for security.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
Future releases should include better bot mitigation, behavioral anomaly detection, compliance templates, advanced threat intel integration, and streamlined multi-cloud support to boost protection and usability.
Senior Cyber Security Engineer at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
A machine learning-based adaptive mode could help the WAF learn over time and auto-tune policies.
Technical Support Executive at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
It would be beneficial if Fortify could check for CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) in third-party libraries, which I currently use a separate dependency checker tool for.
Lead Developer at a legal firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
It would be better for Fortify on Demand if they could analyze not only the security pillar but also maintainability, portability, and reliability, covering all pillars of ISO 25000.
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
 

Setup Cost

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers extensive features and support, though pricing can be high and complex but justifiable.
Enterprise buyers find OpenText Core Application Security expensive, yet appreciate its robust features and scalable, cost-effective cloud options.
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
Project Manager at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
Ciso at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Valuable Features

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers AI-driven security, easy integration, scalability, and robust protection against cyber threats and compliance support.
OpenText Core ensures compliance, accurate security scans, DevOps integration, and cost-effective code analysis with low false positives.
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
Amministratore Della Sicurezza Di Rete at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
Fortify helps me find serious issues, such as developers inadvertently leaving access tokens, including API access tokens, in the source code.
Lead Developer at a legal firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
On demand you have two levels of reports: the first from the tool, which is the same as we can get from Fortify on-premises, and a next level reporting made by experts from OpenText, leading to a more condensed and precise report as level three.
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
Additionally, you can integrate Fortify in CICD pipeline, so you get real-time updates about the security issues in your pipeline.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (9th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 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 OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.5%
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
Other96.3%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2751468 - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
Robust threat protection improves security and operational efficiency
Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex. More guided workflows or templates would help speed up deployment, along with deeper integration with the DevOps pipeline, and while it handles API well, more dedicated API security would add value. In addition, it could be improved with better integration with the DevOps pipeline, more granular reporting, as the dashboards provide good high-level visibility, but sometimes digging into specific attack patterns or trends requires manual effort, and simple tuning of the ML models would be beneficial.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Security Firm
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise16
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
 

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?
The setup cost was taken with the head of the department, who handled the pricing and everything.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
Currently, there is nothing in the areas of Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I would like to see improved or enhanced in the future. If there is anything in the roadmap, I would definitely like to t...
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. T...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.