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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs Veracode 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Organizations achieve up to 90% ROI with Check Point CloudGuard WAF, benefiting from enhanced security, cost savings, and efficiency.
Sentiment score
6.6
Veracode enhances security, reduces costs, and boosts efficiency, with varied ROI perceptions, but some struggle to quantify it financially.
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.
The scanners of Veracode bring status of the weaknesses in the current infrastructure. It scans and provides reports regarding the servers, the network, and the applications running on those servers.
Regarding price, the evaluation should focus on how efficiently they will recover their investment, considering the time saved through the use of Veracode Fix, for example, and the ability to fix code at dev time compared to the problems faced when fixing after the product is already deployed.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
Check Point CloudGuard WAF customer support is generally effective but needs improvement in response times and availability.
Sentiment score
7.2
Veracode's customer service is praised for expertise and responsiveness, though variability and time zones can affect efficiency.
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.
Access to the engineering team is crucial for faster feedback on the product fix process.
I have communicated with the technical support of Veracode a couple of times, and this was a really great experience because these professionals know their material.
They share detailed information via email, including screenshots or further clarification about the issue.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.9
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly scalable, effectively handles increased traffic, and benefits from traffic-based licensing and strong support.
Sentiment score
7.4
Veracode efficiently scales, supports large applications and users, integrates seamlessly, providing fast results with minimal challenges or performance issues.
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.
It handles increasing traffic easily because we can extend our demands based on our needs.
Cloud solutions are easier to scale than on-premise solutions.
It has a good capacity to scale effectively.
Implementing these features into our normal CI/CD was good, so I can say that scalability is really good.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly stable, offering robust performance and minimal downtime with rare disruption instances.
Sentiment score
7.8
Veracode is highly stable with minimal downtime, effective workload handling, and no significant operational issues reported by users.
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.
If the Veracode server is down, we experience many issues during the scan.
It's not that easy to onboard, but once they have been onboarded on the platform, and the pipeline configured alongside the product configured, it works effectively.
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point CloudGuard WAF needs interface, monitoring, documentation, pricing improvements, AI integration, easier setup, and enhanced mobile protection.
Veracode needs improvements in false positives, interface, speed, reporting, tool integration, language support, cost, APIs, and documentation.
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 it could be integrated directly with code repositories such as Bitbucket or GitHub, without the need to create a pipeline to upload and decode code, it would simplify the code scan process significantly.
We had issues with scanning large applications. Scanning took a lot of time, so we kept it outside the DevOps pipeline to avoid delaying deployments.
A nice addition would be if it could be extended for scenarios with custom cleansers.
 

Setup Cost

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers flexible, subscription-based pricing with competitive features, though costs can exceed alternatives like Azure WAF and FortiWeb.
Veracode's pricing is high, valued for features, but complex and costly for small organizations, justified for large enterprises.
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.
It's not the most expensive solution.
Overall, Veracode's pricing is lower and more scalable than many alternatives in the market.
If there's a security gap, you'll never know the cost or effect.
 

Valuable Features

Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides advanced security, easy integration, AI threat detection, and compliance, enhancing control and visibility.
Veracode offers static code analysis, integrates with development tools, provides remediation guidance, and enhances security while ensuring scalability and compliance.
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.
It offers confidence by preventing exposure to vulnerabilities and helps ensure that we are not deploying vulnerable code into production.
The best features in Veracode include static analysis and the early detection of vulnerable libraries; it integrates with tools such as Jenkins.
It fixes issues directly in the IDE while you're doing it.
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (10th)
Veracode
Ranking in Application Security Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
204
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Container Security (8th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

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 Veracode is 7.7%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Veracode7.7%
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.3%
Other92.0%
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.
Kv Rao - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates pipelines smoothly and fortifies code against vulnerabilities
I use Veracode in multiple places including static code analysis, penetration testing, and dynamic code analysis. It is part of our pipeline and integrates well with Bitbucket and Git pipelines The ease of integration with Bitbucket pipelines and Git pipelines is vital for us. Veracode allows us…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
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
8%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business25
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise16
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise43
Large Enterprise112
 

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 don't know about the pricing, setup cost, or licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF, as I don't manage costs.
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...
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...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
When considering pricing, Veracode stands out due to its lower cost per service and more scalable options. It offers nearly five security testing features within its own service, making it a compet...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.