Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs Contrast Security Assess comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and Contrast Security are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.7, while Contrast Security is ranked #31. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.6% mindshare in AS, compared to Contrast Security’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Contrast Security users who would recommend it.

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Read 56 Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) reviews

3,959 Views
990 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

2,631 Views
1,789 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Contrast Security Assess

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 16, 2026

Contrast Security Assess and Check Point WAF operate in the cybersecurity sector, addressing application and web application security needs, respectively. Based on user feedback, Check Point WAF is favored for its comprehensive protection capabilities, while Contrast Security Assess is praised for specific features.

Features: Contrast Security Assess stands out with real-time application vulnerability analysis and CI/CD pipeline integration, which assist development teams in addressing security proactively. Features like low false-positive rates, runtime scanning, and integration capabilities make it unique. Check Point WAF provides strong threat prevention, AI-based threat detection, and DDoS protection, which are particularly beneficial for enhancing web application security. Moreover, features like bot protection and intelligent threat detection are paramount for maintaining robust website defense.

Room for Improvement: Contrast Security Assess could improve its integration process to ease deployment within different development environments and decrease the learning curve. It might also benefit from expanding its Protect functionalities. Check Point WAF could enhance user interface intuitiveness, reduce occasional configuration complexities, and further lower the false positive rate in certain scenarios to optimize user experience and efficiency.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Check Point WAF offers a seamless cloud-based deployment with flexible scaling, backed by extensive support for a better user experience. Contrast Security Assess, while effective, demands more integration effort in development settings, and users find its learning curve steeper. However, both provide solid customer support, with Check Point's service generally being rated more positively.

Pricing and ROI: Contrast Security Assess requires higher initial investment but promises strong returns by securing applications early in the development lifecycle. Check Point WAF, while competitively priced, delivers excellent return on investment through its extensive security coverage, making it an attractive choice for organizations needing scalable and cost-efficient web protection solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Contrast Security Assess Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Contrast Security Assess

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 886,719 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 WAF (formerly C...

Ranking in Application Security Tools

5th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (8th)

Contrast Security Assess

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (27th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 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 Contrast Security Assess is 1.5%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF	0.6%
Contrast Security Assess	1.5%
Other	97.9%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

KrishnakumarM

CISO at Pink Solutions

Cloud security has strengthened risk posture and improved advanced threat visibility

There are some API gateway and API securities I mentioned. If these are incorporated with AI-related features, particularly those seven key vulnerabilities I mentioned—token theft and tool poisoning—that would be beneficial. AI-related features are not included yet in Check Point CloudGuard WAF. However, they are present in FortiGate. That is the advantage of FortiGate now. FortiGate is stopping all AI-related vulnerabilities now. FortiGate has this capability. It is unfortunate that even Palo Alto also lacks one or two of these features. Check Point Quantum is very good, without a doubt. However, their capabilities are not in comparison with Palo Alto. There are some features, but there are some gaps in comparison with Palo Alto.

Read full review

ToddMcAlister

Lead Application and Data Security Engineer at a insurance company with 5,001-10,000 employees

It has an excellent API interface to pull APIs.

Assess has brought our development time down because it helps create code the first time. Instead of going through the Jenkins process to build an application, they can see right off the bat that if there are errors in the code and fix them before it even goes to build.

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 price of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is not expensive, as it was the cheapest solution we found."

"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."

"Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."

"User attitude reviews help us keep all online users compliant with company regulations and policies."

"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."

"Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure."

"It has allowed us to use components with known vulnerabilities, which have been prevented based on their multiple databases that have correlated incidents, helping the development of applications to be fast, efficient, and safe, which is what we were looking for."

"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."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pros

"Contrast was a very complete solution; it met all of our technical requirements and it was really the only IAST product that felt like a real product."

"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."

"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away."

"Overall, the product is strong and improving, support is responsive and effective, and supported integrations work for many customers."

"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."

"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."

"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."

"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

Cons

"I would like to be able to integrate the theme of Artificial Intelligence to help review issues and to monitor and view the security issue while also suggesting and interpreting and additionally configuring solutions - basically, acting as an interpreter."

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

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF's support is only available in English."

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

"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation."

"The trial version should be extended further so that QA test engineers can actually test the utilities in a real sense and can provide the maximum amount of feedback for enhancements."

"The User interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."

"It was costlier than other solutions."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) cons

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end."

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."

"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."

"The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."

"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

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

"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."

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

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pricing and cost advice

"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."

"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."

"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."

"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."

"The solution is expensive."

"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."

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

886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

26%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	35
Midsize Enterprise	20
Large Enterprise	19

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

Questions from the Community

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

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive. It is a little bit expensive. You cannot avoid this from an Israeli product. Israeli products follow a certain pricing model. If they could reduce the cost ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?

While Check Point CloudGuard WAF is a strong solution, it could be improved in a few areas such as simplifying and customizing the user interface and reporting database. Improving API security dept...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for CloudGuard for Application Security?

Check Point CloudGuard WAF's primary use is protecting web applications and APIs from application layer attacks in the cloud. I also use it to protect public-facing apps.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 12% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 10% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 10% of the time

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 9% of the time

F5 Advanced WAF vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 8% of the time

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Competitors

Veracode vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

FortiDevSec vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

Digital.ai Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

GitHub vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

April 2026

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) report

Download Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) product report

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess

April 2026

Download Contrast Security Assess product report

Also Known As

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

Contrast Assess

Overview

Check Point WAF uses AI-driven threat prevention with seamless API integration, offering advanced DDoS protection. It auto-learns attack patterns, updates protection, and minimizes false positives. Its interface simplifies policy management for secure web applications across cloud environments.

Check Point WAF combines AI-driven threat detection with streamlined policy management to provide effective security for web applications and APIs. It offers zero-day protection, threat intelligence, and advanced DDoS protection. Users enjoy robust logging and compliance management across multi-cloud environments. Integration is smooth, with reduced reliance on signatures, facilitating multi-layer security. Despite its strengths, users note areas for improvement, such as latency and pricing, and call for enhancements in API security, real-time monitoring, and reporting. Challenges include integration complexity and limited technical support accessibility. Effective application security across dynamic environments is a key offering.

What are Check Point WAF's key features?

AI-Driven Threat Prevention: Utilizes AI to identify and block threats, minimizing false positives.
Seamless API Integration: Ensures integration into existing infrastructures without delays.
Advanced DDoS Protection: Safeguards against large-scale attacks to maintain service availability.
Auto-Learning Capability: Continuously adapts to new threat patterns for improved security.
User-Friendly Management: Simplifies policy and compliance management tasks.

What benefits can users expect from Check Point WAF?

Extensive Logging: Enables comprehensive analysis and auditing through detailed records.
Reduced Total Cost of Ownership: Provides cost-effective security measures in cloud environments.
Zero-Day Protection: Offers proactive defense against unidentified vulnerabilities.
Streamlined Deployment: Reduces deployment times with easy integration processes.
Robust Multi-Layer Security: Reinforces application security without heavy reliance on signatures.

Check Point WAF finds particular relevance in industries requiring robust cybersecurity measures such as finance, healthcare, and e-commerce. These sectors benefit from its advanced threat detection and adaptive security policy management, crucial for securing sensitive data across multi-cloud infrastructures. By managing API usage efficiently, it helps maintain regulatory compliance while ensuring optimal operation. Enhanced traffic logging and malware threat management add to its appeal for organizations focusing on securing transactions and sensitive information.

Check Point Software Technologies

Contrast Security is the world’s leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.

Contrast Security

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Contrast Security Assess

April 2026

Free Report: Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Contrast Security Assess

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Contrast Security Assess and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Contrast Security Assess 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.