No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs CodeSonar comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 16, 2026

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 WAF (formerly C...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th)
CodeSonar
Ranking in Application Security Tools
30th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Static Code Analysis (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.1%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)0.6%
CodeSonar1.1%
Other98.3%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mohan Janarthanan - PeerSpot reviewer
Associate Vice President at Novac Technology Solutions
Integrated web protection has reduced breaches and now prevents attacks across critical apps
I have been using it for six months, and the biggest advantages for me are that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) offers more than other F5 firewalls, which have only application protection called ASM (Application Security Monitoring). In contrast, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) provides protection on IPS along with application protection. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) itself provides an IPS function where I can protect against my Layer 7 traffic, which is not available in other vendors. The traditional WAF does not have the capacity of IPS functions. The intrusion prevention capability, I can only see in Layer 3 functions and stateful functions, which is the traditional firewall capability. Other vendors are keeping this in their Web Application Firewall, but Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has integrated it differently. False positives are significantly less here compared to traditional Web Application Firewalls because they are more focused on the AI front. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) integrates an AI platform within the Web Application itself using API protection with AI and what they call GenAI protection. They excel at creating the profile itself, which is the basic functionality of WAF. Normally, I deploy in preventive mode, which takes some time for learning, but I prefer to operate in preventing mode only.
Mathieu ALBRESPY - PeerSpot reviewer
Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel
Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand
This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"CloudGuard Application Security is a one-stop unified solution for securing workloads and IT assets most efficiently."
"It is a highly scalable solution with a quick turnaround time for deployment and running of the software across any IT system."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security is the one-stop solution for the security of applications and providing API protection to servers and facilities 24/7."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted our organization in security and operational efficiency, with a 30-40% drop in malicious traffic and a 15-20% reduction in manual intervention for our SOC team due to reduced false positives and automated protection."
"Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) helps my clients reduce total cost of ownership, and the return on investment was really high for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and it was the only product with GenAI security features compared to other WAF products."
"I would definitely recommend this solution because I do not want to implement one more traffic function as I can eliminate the firewall and use Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) alone, thus eliminating Layer 3 traffic directly connecting to my Web Application Firewall."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides great visibility and flexibility to use multiple FQDNs in a single load balancer."
"The biggest benefit from Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I saw is that it comes with one solution that completely outperforms its competitors."
"It has helped us a lot with some issues and has helped us avoid bad code."
"I would suggest trying out automated tools along with CodeSonar on your project, and you will find out that CodeSonar reports many more defects compared to other static analysis tools, so this is a very important tool."
"CodeSonar has helped our organization because it detects dead and nonusable parts of code to create a more optimized code."
"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"It has been able to scale."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
 

Cons

"The creation of security profiles for each application takes a lot of time."
"At present, we require a lot of customization and additional features to make it usable in our system."
"A gap for improvement for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is the learning curve, as better training modules could help end customers, and pricing and reporting functionality could also be improved."
"I see areas for improvement primarily on the reporting functionality front, as there are very limited functions in the reporting section."
"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."
"I would like it to be able to analyze more complex functions, although I did not examine the case study of more complex implementations. Things like forum fields, etc seem to need a little more focused protection of the fields scheme validation."
"The negative side I see is that while most things about Check Point CloudGuard WAF are really good, there is some latency and performance issues, as it can be slow to log in, especially from different regions."
"It was difficult for us to apply a rule, especially to a part of the code, and not apply it to the rest of the code."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"The MISRA guidelines were not appropriately reported and there were some flags or errors."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"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"
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."
"Pricing is a bit costly."
"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."
"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
24%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business38
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise24
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing is reasonable, and I believe it is acceptable. I am satisfied with the timing.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The negative aspect is that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) uses Check Point Harmony in its management console, which sometimes creates latency when connecting to or opening the platform....
What is your primary use case for CloudGuard for Application Security?
I want to protect my application hosted in my cloud by preventing attacks against my top OWASP Top 10 threats. I am enabling Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) as my application firewall. Th...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. CodeSonar and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.