Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and Spirent are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.8, while Spirent is ranked #31. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.3% mindshare in AS, compared to Spirent’s 0.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Spirent users who would recommend it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Read 48 Check Point CloudGuard WAF reviews

1,844 Views
443 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Spirent CyberFlood

Read 5 Spirent CyberFlood reviews

756 Views
318 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Spirent CyberFlood

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Spirent CyberFlood and Check Point CloudGuard WAF are leading cybersecurity products. Spirent CyberFlood has the upper hand in pricing and support, while Check Point CloudGuard WAF is superior in features valued by users.

Features: Spirent CyberFlood is noted for advanced testing capabilities, effective simulation features, and a user-friendly setup. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is distinguished by its extensive security features, robust integration options, and automated protection tools. Users appreciate the feature support in Check Point CloudGuard WAF for comprehensive security needs.

Room for Improvement: Spirent CyberFlood could benefit from enhanced reporting capabilities, more extensive integration features, and better data visualization. Check Point CloudGuard WAF users seek improved logging options, more intuitive management interfaces, and stronger user engagement tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Spirent CyberFlood is recognized for its straightforward deployment process and responsive customer support, facilitating ease of use for newcomers. Check Point CloudGuard WAF, although slightly more complex to set up, offers excellent customer service support to help users overcome deployment challenges.

Pricing and ROI: Spirent CyberFlood is praised for competitive setup costs and favorable ROI, perceived as cost-effective by users. Check Point CloudGuard WAF has higher initial costs, justified by the significant ROI and effectiveness perceived by users, making its price point worthwhile for comprehensive security needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,566 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

7th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (10th)

Spirent CyberFlood

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (29th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent CyberFlood is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF	0.3%
Spirent CyberFlood	0.4%
Other	99.3%

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

"The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature."

"CloudGuard WAF has been great."

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

"The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage."

"The solution offers continuous security monitoring and alerting, which can help organizations detect and respond to security incidents in real time."

"The solution offers sophisticated security techniques with unique characteristics that can be particularly valuable for the financial sector, which is where we develop apps."

"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."

"The most effective CloudGuard feature for threat prevention is its web app protection."

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF pros

"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."

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

"CyberFlood is flexible."

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

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

"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."

Cons

"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."

"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."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."

"CloudGuard could improve in areas such as ease of integration with Fortinet and reducing costs associated with deployment in cloud environments like Azure."

"The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good."

"The reporting can be improved."

"For the next release, I would suggest considering features like enhanced threat intelligence integration."

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

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF cons

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

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

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

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

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"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"

"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 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."

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

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."

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

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

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Manufacturing Company

16%

Comms Service Provider

13%

Government

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	25
Midsize Enterprise	18
Large Enterprise	16

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.

See all answers

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

I don't know about the pricing, setup cost, or licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF, as I don't manage costs.

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?

Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved; initially, the setup is very complicated, and there's not a lot of documentation available, plus it didn't have something for anti-bot, but other than th...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 19% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 14% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 11% of the time

open-appsec vs Check Point CloudGuard WAF

Compared 10% of the time

More Check Point CloudGuard WAF Competitors

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Spirent CyberFlood

Compared 65% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Spirent CyberFlood

Compared 26% of the time

Ixia BreakingPoint VE vs Spirent CyberFlood

Compared 10% of the time

More Spirent CyberFlood Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF

October 2025

Download Check Point CloudGuard WAF product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

September 2025

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 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

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

Buyer's Guide

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood

September 2025

Free Report: Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Spirent CyberFlood 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.