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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.6
Organizations saw up to 90% ROI from improved security, reduced costs, and operational efficiencies with Check Point CloudGuard WAF.
Sentiment score
7.2
SonarQube Server boosts productivity, stability, and security through effective code analysis and vulnerability assessment, enhancing development processes.
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
I have seen a return on the investment from SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) because the value it adds relates to static code analysis and vulnerability assessments needed for our FDA approval process.
We see productivity increasing based on the fact that the code review is mostly automated, allowing the developer to fix the code themselves before assigning it to someone else to review, thus receiving that ROI.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
Check Point CloudGuard WAF's support is praised for expertise, though some suggest improving response times and extending support hours.
Sentiment score
6.2
SonarQube Server's support is valued for community resources and documentation, though free version technical support is limited.
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
The community support is quite effective.
I would rate the technical support for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as a 10 because we have not faced any specific issues that required us to contact tech support, which is a very rare case.
They showed us where we can actually get those granular level reporting extracted for Excel, which was a quick guide.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.5
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is praised for scalability, efficiently supporting diverse workloads and seamless expansion across cloud environments.
Sentiment score
7.1
SonarQube Server efficiently scales for various user volumes and project sizes, though infrastructure demands may rise in physical setups.
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
I would rate the scalability of SonarQube Server as a 10 because we can configure the server to scan multiple projects based on the number of lines.
I find SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) very scalable because we're able to create a new repository and integrate all the tools on that project and it just works.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly stable and reliable, with minimal interruptions and excellent performance across environments.
Sentiment score
7.7
SonarQube Server is highly reliable, stable with minor issues often related to plugins or environments, and rarely crashes.
It is very stable.
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
I think SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is stable, and we did not face any problems unless there was a power outage or if the LAN cable was plugged out.
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point CloudGuard WAF requires cost reduction, better integration, improved UI, enhanced support, and clearer pricing models.
SonarQube Server needs better issue detection, usability, language support, integration, customizable features, and AI-driven dynamic testing enhancements.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
It's not something you manipulate, it's not an antivirus where you deal with signatures, updates, and upgrades every day.
I would say that the more automation this product has, the easier it will be to work with it.
If I fix some vulnerabilities today, they reappear in the next scan, and there will be completely different issues that need to be fixed.
As soon as I see that they've got a new feature that integrates AI that is not as generative as other GenAI platforms that actually generate the code and help developers develop faster, I believe that capability is lacking.
 

Setup Cost

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers competitive pricing with flexible licensing, though costs can be higher and complex when scaling.
SonarQube Server provides cost-effective solutions for code quality, with competitive pricing and enhanced features for various project sizes.
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
I would rate the pricing for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as an 8, where 1 is very cheap and 10 is very expensive, because Coverity is very expensive, and while SonarQube is not cheap, it is still less expensive than Coverity.
They always offer around a two-year contract, but we always take a one-year contract because it's expensive.
The freemium version of SonarQube Server offers excellent value, especially compared to the high costs of Snyk.
 

Valuable Features

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers seamless integration, scalability, AI-powered security, and visibility, excelling in protection and cost-efficiency.
SonarQube Server enhances code quality with language support, CI/CD integration, insightful dashboards, and an intuitive interface.
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Some of the static code analysis capabilities are the most beneficial.
The most valuable features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) for us include having control of the rules, enabling and disabling them.
We use SonarQube Server's centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve.
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)
SonarQube Server (formerly ...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
116
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (1st), Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 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 SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is 23.5%, down from 26.8% 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.
Sthembiso Zondi - PeerSpot reviewer
Consistent improvements in code quality and security with effective integration and reliable technical support
The features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) that I find most useful are the suggestions received from reviewing the code. When they review the code, they provide suggestions on how to fix it, and we find those very useful from a development perspective. We use SonarQube Server's (formerly SonarQube) centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve. We use that for organizational improvement purposes. The ability to tailor metrics tracking in SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) has been beneficial to my team. There are team-specific dashboards which are related to specific repositories they utilize, and we have that aggregative dashboard that shows the whole organization's performance. We can drill down per specific repository, which makes it easier for the team to improve specific things.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage. Also, while the documentation is comprehensive, it can be diffi...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
 

Also Known As

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

Interactive Demo

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.