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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.1%, up from 2.0% 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.
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"On the endpoint side, the most valuable feature is undoubtedly the cloud-based management capability, along with the ransomware protection, despite not encountering any instances so far."
"The first valuable feature is that it is not a complex process to get it up and running. It was not complex at all. We were in a close relationship with the team that developed the app, and it worked in a few hours. The second valuable feature is the information that comes out of it."
"From a security perspective, it is quite good."
"Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure."
"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."
"The solution offers sophisticated security techniques with unique characteristics that can be particularly valuable for the financial sector, which is where we develop apps."
"The solution's strongest point is that you can connect everything to it, giving you a full view of what's connected."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies."
"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."
"The solution scans web applications and supports APIs, which are the main features I really like."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
"The feature that we have found most valuable is that it comes with pre-set configurations. They have a set of predefined options where you can pick one and start scanning. We also have the option of creating our own configurations, like how often do the applications need to be scanned."
"For pentesting scenarios, this is the number one tool. It can capture the request, and there are so many functions that are very good for that. For example, a black box satellite host."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
 

Cons

"It was costlier than other solutions."
"For the next release, I would suggest considering features like enhanced threat intelligence integration."
"I advise proactive threat detection intelligence offline, which can also help monitor and ensure system checks and compliances are in place."
"The reporting can be improved."
"If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."
"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation."
"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 focused protection of the fields scheme validation."
"A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment."
"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."
"If your application uses multi-factor authentication, registration management cannot be automated."
"It would be beneficial to have privileged access management as a part of Burp Suite Professional."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"It would be beneficial to have privileged access management as a part of Burp Suite Professional."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"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."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"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 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."
"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"PortSwigger is a bit expensive."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is expensive compared to other tools."
"At $400 or $500 per license paid annually, it is a very cheap tool."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"Burp Suite is affordable."
"The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
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
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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.
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...
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.