Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood

Download the complete report

Helped 860,592 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)

Spirent CyberFlood

Ranking in Application Security Tools

45th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (31st)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 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 Spirent CyberFlood is 0.2%, up from 0.1% 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

Jos Badimo

Director at BAMS

Test assurance improves compliance and products with good performance

The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one screen most of the time. Even if the system navigates me to another screen, it should effectively return me to the main screen.

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

"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."

"I have thousands of exposed websites and APIs. Being able to control what is happening and try to prevent any attack is the best feature."

"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."

"Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security."

"The tool helps us to block IPs and applications."

"One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard."

"With the solution, we managed to obtain complete comprehensive visibility of the entire environment in the cloud, thus having better control of each of the resources."

"It provides security for our customers and our products."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"CyberFlood is flexible."

"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."

"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."

"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."

"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."

"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."

Cons

"One of the big problems we found in Check Point, in general, is the support."

"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."

"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."

"When I migrate the traffic from our mobile application to CloudGuard, we are not getting what we expected."

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

"We would like to have a solution of this type for the administration of applications from mobile devices."

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

"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."

"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."

"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."

"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."

"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."

"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."

"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."

"If the pricing for the Infinity platform covers everything, it would be more straightforward. I had a hard time selling it to our CEO as a former CFO because of the differentials. There are different deltas year to year over a five-year period. It is very difficult to explain. It would be easier to digest for our executives if there was a flatter scale"

"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."

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

"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."

"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pricing and cost advice

"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."

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

860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Comms Service Provider

11%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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...

What needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?

What is your primary use case for Spirent CyberFlood?

I have been using the solution for a year now. The customers I work with are focused on both custom test assurance and test automation. The solution is utilized in the financial services sector and...

What advice do you have for others considering Spirent CyberFlood?

The language barrier and time difference pose significant issues with customer support. The price is competitive. The biggest benefits I find are test assurance, the reliability of the test results...

Imperva Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Comparisons

Compared 19% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 15% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% of the time

open-appsec vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Spirent CyberFlood

Compared 78% of the time

Ixia BreakingPoint VE vs Spirent CyberFlood

Compared 22% of the time

More Spirent CyberFlood Competitors

Product Reports

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Application Security Tools

Download Spirent CyberFlood product report

Also Known As

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

CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing

Overview

Check Point CloudGuard WAF (Web Application Firewall) is a cloud-native security solution designed to protect web applications and APIs from known and unknown threats. It employs contextual AI and machine learning to prevent zero-day attacks without relying on traditional signature-based detection methods, ensuring that applications remain secure even as new threats emerge.

CloudGuard WAF offers preemptive protection against vulnerabilities by using machine learning to identify and block zero-day threats like Log4Shell and Spring4Shell. It provides precise detection capabilities, minimizing the need for constant fine-tuning and reducing false positives. Designed for cloud-native environments, CloudGuard WAF integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, supporting automated deployment and configuration through infrastructure as code (IaC) or APIs.

Key Features of CloudGuard WAF:

ML-Based Threat Prevention: Stops application-layer attacks, including those listed in the OWASP Top 10, with minimal tuning and no reliance on signature updates.
API Discovery and Security: Identifies and secures APIs, preventing misuse and enforcing API schemas to protect against unauthorized access.
Bot and DDoS Prevention: Detects and mitigates automated attacks that can disrupt services or degrade customer experiences.
Intrusion Prevention (IPS): Provides protection against over 2,800 web-related CVEs using Check Point’s award-winning IPS technology.

Benefits of CloudGuard WAF:

Zero-Day Protection: Mitigates risks from newly discovered vulnerabilities without waiting for signature updates.
Reduced Operational Overhead: Eliminates the need for constant manual tuning and exception handling, simplifying security management.
Comprehensive API Security: Enhances control over your attack surface by discovering and securing all APIs, including shadow, rogue, and deprecated endpoints.
Fast and Easy Deployment: Deployable within minutes via WAF as a Service (WAFaaS), requiring only a one-time DNS configuration for immediate protection.

CloudGuard WAF is particularly suitable for organizations using modern, cloud-based architectures that require robust, automated security measures for both applications and APIs. Its capabilities are valuable for industries that handle sensitive data, such as finance or healthcare, where compliance and data protection are critical. Pricing and support are typically customized to the specific needs and scale of the deployment, with options for continuous updates and maintenance through Check Point's managed services.

CloudGuard WAF by Check Point provides advanced, AI-driven protection for web applications and APIs, offering automated, precise threat prevention and easy integration with cloud-native environments, ensuring robust security without the need for extensive manual configuration.

Check Point Software Technologies

Spirent’s revolutionary CyberFlood security and application testing solution is now available as a virtual platform offering you simplified use, by consolidating multiple test functions into a completely virtual test environment.

Spirent

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Digicel

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood