Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.8, while OpenText is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.0. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.1% mindshare in AS, compared to OpenText’s 4.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Read 46 Check Point CloudGuard WAF reviews

1,534 Views
276 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 60 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

7,668 Views
5,598 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and Check Point CloudGuard WAF compete in the application security category. Check Point CloudGuard WAF seems to have the upper hand due to its strong threat prevention and AI-based analysis capabilities.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security is noted for its on-demand capabilities, ease of use, and comprehensive reports, integrating seamlessly with various development tools. Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers strong threat prevention features, AI-based analysis, and the ability to monitor multiple environments, which is particularly beneficial for businesses needing extensive protection.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security needs enhanced reporting features and broader language support, along with better integration with incident management systems and reduced false positives. Check Point CloudGuard WAF could work on improving latency issues in its administrative portal and offer better support documentation. Users also want improved integration capacities with other security solutions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security offers deployment flexibility across on-premises, public, and private clouds, but users experience mixed technical support services post-acquisition. Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides robust deployment options in various cloud environments, yet users suggest clearer customer support guidance and faster response times are needed.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is critiqued for high pricing, but its advanced features offer cost-effectiveness. Check Point CloudGuard WAF presents competitive pricing, although it's more expensive than some alternatives. Both solutions are seen as worthwhile investments due to their robust security benefits, regardless of initial costs.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 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

9th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Application Security Tools

14th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th)

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 OpenText Core Application Security is 4.3%, down from 5.1% 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

Jonathan Steyn

Principal Technical Consultant at EOH

Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis

Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

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

"Overall, the product is excellent."

"It offers high performance and improved productivity for users."

"The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its rich logging capabilities."

"The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments."

"The ability to preemptively block zero day attacks and detect hidden anomalies is exactly its advantage."

"The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities."

"We have saved money by protecting our environment from new vulnerabilities and preventing theft by cybercriminals."

"The tool performs device health checkups and updates us. It helps us to be compliant with regulatory policies."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."

"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."

"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."

"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."

"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."

"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."

"The user interface is good."

"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"You need to know exactly the system. You cannot have someone running the system if they don't have the knowledge to do so."

"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."

"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."

"Pricing and licensing are really expensive for this product. While it provides a very good security level, the price for each service is high."

"Cost reduction and trial period extension should be considered with some lucrative discount offerings in buying standard versions."

"The UI interface needs improvement because there are a number of bugs. Integration with the SIEM platform is currently one of the key challenges that need to be addressed."

"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."

"I feel like I need more clarity in understanding pricing for DDoS protection."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify."

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."

"There are many false positives identified by the solution."

"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise. In the next release, we need more reports and more analytic views for all the applications. There is no enterprise view in Fortify. I would like enterprise views and reports."

"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."

"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."

"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."

"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."

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

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."

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

"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."

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."

"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."

"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."

"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

"It is cost-effective."

"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

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

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

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?

The initial cost of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is high.

See all answers

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. ...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as passw...

See all answers

Comparisons

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 18% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 16% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 12% of the time

Coverity vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 10% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

August 2025

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

August 2025

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

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

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers advanced security for web applications and APIs with features such as intrusion prevention, bot prevention, and AI-driven threat detection, ensuring organizations achieve high-level protection and efficient security management.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF integrates with APIs, providing a seamless security enhancement while reducing false positives. Its scalability supports rapid deployment, valuable for companies aiming to secure resources in clouds like AWS and Azure. Enhanced threat prevention, comprehensive compliance support, and advanced threat protection methods such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting prevention are key strengths. Despite its robust capabilities, there are opportunities for improvement, such as lower costs, improved third-party tool integration, and a more intuitive interface to enhance usability.

What are the key features of Check Point CloudGuard WAF?

Intrusion Prevention System: Effectively detects and blocks unauthorized access attempts.
Bot Prevention: Shields applications from malicious bot traffic.
AI-driven Threat Detection: Uses advanced algorithms to identify and mitigate threats.
Log Management: Offers extensive logging capabilities for tracking and analysis.
Scalability: Supports rapid deployment across different environments, including multi-cloud.

What benefits should users expect from Check Point CloudGuard WAF?

Security Efficiency: Combines high-grade protection with ease of use to simplify security management.
Cost Efficiency: Aids in effective resource utilization, minimizing overhead.
Compliance Support: Helps meet various industry standards effortlessly.
Enhanced Threat Protection: Provides robust safeguards against common web vulnerabilities.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is predominantly applied within industries requiring stringent security standards, such as financial services, healthcare, and e-commerce. Its deployment strengthens the defense of critical APIs, facilitates compliance, and supports efficient multi-cloud security management, aligning well with evolving industry demands.

Check Point Software Technologies

OpenText Core Application Security offers robust features like static and dynamic scanning, real-time vulnerability tracking, and seamless integration with development platforms, designed to enhance code security and reduce operational costs.

OpenText Core Application Security is a cloud-based, on-demand service providing accurate and deep scanning capabilities with detailed reporting. Its integrations with development platforms ensure an enhanced security layer in the development lifecycle, benefiting users by lowering operational costs and facilitating efficient remediation. The platform addresses needs for intuitive interfaces, API support, and comprehensive vulnerability assessments, helping improve code security and accelerate time-to-market. Despite its strengths, challenges exist around false positives, report clarity, and language support, alongside confusing pricing and package options. Enhancements are sought in areas like CI/CD pipeline configuration, report visualization, scan times, and integration with third-party tools such as GitLab, container scanning, and software composition analysis.

What features define OpenText Core Application Security?

Static and Dynamic Scanning: Offers thorough analysis to identify vulnerabilities during development.
Real-time Vulnerability Tracking: Continuously updates and monitors potential security threats.
Seamless Development Platform Integration: Enhances security processes without disrupting workflows.
Cloud-Based Service: Provides flexible, on-demand security capabilities with accurate results.
API Support: Allows smooth integration and automation within existing systems.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Reduced Operational Costs: Optimizes resources by lowering costs associated with security management.
Efficient Remediation: Speeds up the process of identifying and resolving vulnerabilities.
Enhanced Code Security: Strengthens overall application security during the development lifecycle.
Accelerated Time-to-Market: Streamlines development stages by integrating essential security tools.

Industries like mobile applications, e-commerce, and banking leverage OpenText Core Application Security for its ability to identify vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. Integrating seamlessly with DevSecOps and security auditing processes, this tool supports developers in writing safer code, ensuring secure application deployment and enhancing software assurance.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security

July 2025

Free Report: Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. OpenText Core Application Security 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.