We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard WAF and SonicWall Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF).
"Its ability to adapt to our applications and ensure our security policies are followed is a big plus."
"User attitude reviews help us keep all online users compliant with company regulations and policies."
"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."
"It offers good functionality of the application that is currently running."
"It is a highly scalable solution with a quick turnaround time for deployment and running of the software across any IT system."
"I find the configuration and real-time monitoring features valuable."
"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."
"The portal is quite intuitive."
"We use SonicWall Web Application Firewall for security and tunneling."
"The solution offers better data protection than competitors."
"Capture ATP is a good additional feature in the latest version."
"For the next release, I would suggest considering features like enhanced threat intelligence integration."
"We would like the solution to be more economical since it is not accessible to all clients."
"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."
"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."
"They need improved latency in the main window."
"One of the big problems we found in Check Point, in general, is the support."
"It doesn't detect user activity like some of its competitors. It's not a vulnerability, but it's a legitimate activity that it doesn't detect. It only detects vulnerabilities or misconfigurations."
"A feature we'd like to see in the future is something that could protect against other attack vectors, with a focus on application protection."
"We should get the logs from the solution, and it should communicate with the local DNS."
"The solution needs an access management feature with API integration so we can assign certain levels of access within groups."
"We have a lot of unknown errors popping up in the latest version."
More SonicWall Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 29 reviews while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is ranked 25th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is rated 9.0, while SonicWall Web Application Firewall is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard WAF writes "Automation capabilities also help streamline security processes and smooths down API integration processes and detects API availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall Web Application Firewall writes "A stable and durable solution that can be used for security and tunneling". Check Point CloudGuard WAF is most compared with SonarQube and Checkmarx One, whereas SonicWall Web Application Firewall is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.
