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

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

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

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
6.3
Check Point WAF increases ROI by reducing costs, improving efficiency, enhancing security, and offering a pay-as-you-use model.
Sentiment score
7.6
F5 Advanced WAF offers ROI by saving time, reducing costs, enhancing security, and ensuring compliance for businesses.
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Manager, Managed Security Services at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.
Time savings in daily operations come from the automatic learning and signature update reducing the need for constant manual rule management, allowing the security and network teams to spend significantly less time handling false positive application-related escalations.
Cyber Security Consultant at HR Software Solution
Subscription models offer clearer ROI due to a more competitive pricing scheme.
Global Channel Alliances Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
The amount of attacks it protects against is immense, more than F5 Advanced WAF itself costs.
Security Solutions Architect at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.6
Check Point WAF's customer support is praised for responsiveness, though some suggest improvements for complex issue handling and 24/7 availability.
Sentiment score
6.9
F5 Advanced WAF's customer service is highly professional and knowledgeable, but response speed and availability need improvement for some users.
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
Principal Cybersecurity Specialist at Unitel S.A.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
Both response time and availability need to be improved.
Security Analyst at IBM
While they resolve issues well, the time taken for responses to non-critical issues should be shorter.
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
If there is a bug, the support is usually understanding and resolves issues.
CEO at CyberApp
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Check Point WAF excels in scalability, adapting to diverse cloud environments with a flexible licensing model and SaaS deployment.
Sentiment score
7.5
F5 Advanced WAF is scalable, efficiently handling large traffic, praised for flexibility, and easily upgraded to meet user needs.
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
Project Manager at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Check Point CloudGuard WAF's scalability is very good.
Sr. VP of Creative & Development at a non-tech company with 51-200 employees
If you need to scale up, such as moving from a lower model to a higher one, the configuration from the lower model can be migrated easily without issues.
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
I can run it in HA mode or even divide the traffic volume to the number of instances that I have based on their resource sizing.
Security Solutions Architect at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point WAF is highly stable and reliable, with users praising its consistent performance and minimal issues.
Sentiment score
8.4
F5 Advanced WAF is highly reliable and stable, rarely facing downtime, with user ratings of 8-10 for performance.
It is very stable.
Team Leader, Cloudops & Cloud Architect at a consultancy with 501-1,000 employees
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
Sysadmin at a government with 501-1,000 employees
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
F5 Advanced WAF has been very reliable and consistent for us; in our on-premise enterprise setup, it has been stable and predictable in day-to-day operations without any unexpected crashes or WAF-related downtime in production.
Cyber Security Consultant at HR Software Solution
F5 Advanced WAF is stable, and there is no doubt it is one of the best WAFs in the market.
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
F5 Advanced WAF is pretty stable.
Security Solutions Architect at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point WAF needs UI simplification, better integration, improved documentation, and enhanced AI features for improved user experience.
F5 Advanced WAF needs improvements in pricing, usability, API protection, bot detection, deployment, and advanced integration features.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
Future releases should include better bot mitigation, behavioral anomaly detection, compliance templates, advanced threat intel integration, and streamlined multi-cloud support to boost protection and usability.
Senior Cyber Security Engineer at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
A machine learning-based adaptive mode could help the WAF learn over time and auto-tune policies.
Technical Support Executive at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Deployment training for F5 Advanced WAF is lacking and restricts growth by being inaccessible and costly for partners.
Global Channel Alliances Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Overall, these are not blockers, merely enhancement opportunities, and once tuned, F5 Advanced WAF is very stable and reliable; improving usability, reporting, and onboarding would make it even more effective for larger environments.
Cyber Security Consultant at HR Software Solution
Another improvement could be refining the bot detection to minimize false positives; it should be able to verify more granularly between legitimate and non-legitimate clients.
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise buyers find Check Point WAF pricey but valuable for its features, though pricing complexity varies by company size.
Enterprise buyers find F5 Advanced WAF's pricing high but justified in banking, with complex licensing and higher setup costs.
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
Cyber security manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
Project Manager at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
Ciso at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
Licensing is capacity-driven, so you need careful planning based on traffic volume and use cases, and adding features such as Bot Protection impacts costs; once licensing is clear and sized correctly, there are no surprises.
Cyber Security Consultant at HR Software Solution
Subscription models have competitive pricing, while perpetual licenses involve an upfront higher cost.
Global Channel Alliances Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
The price is affordable and satisfactory.
CEO at CyberApp
 

Valuable Features

Check Point WAF excels in AI threat detection, seamless cloud integration, user-friendly interface, and minimizing false positives.
F5 Advanced WAF offers robust application security with bot protection, DDoS mitigation, and customizable threat detection for improved efficiency.
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
Infrastructure Manager at FPMH
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
Security Administrator at Regione Marche
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
The Advanced Attack Signature database is very strong and regularly updated, effectively blocking SQL injections, cross-site scripting, command injections, and file inclusion attacks while allowing selective enabling or disabling of signatures to avoid blocking genuine traffic.
Cyber Security Consultant at HR Software Solution
The perpetual license, despite an initial higher cost, lacks transparency regarding support expiration.
Global Channel Alliances Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
It contains the logic of both negative and positive security combined.
CEO at CyberApp
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point WAF (formerly C...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (5th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (8th), DevSecOps (2nd)
F5 Advanced WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 2.0%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 3.9%, down from 8.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 Advanced WAF3.9%
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)2.0%
Other94.1%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

Krishnakumar Mahadevan - PeerSpot reviewer
CISO at Spink Solutions Private Limited
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.
reviewer2797602 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Granular security policies have protected critical applications and ensure safe user and admin access
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify which source generated these requests, including the source and port information for initiation. These data are missing from F5 Advanced WAF. Besides that, another improvement could be refining the bot detection to minimize false positives; it should be able to verify more granularly between legitimate and non-legitimate clients. Overall, I find everything else good. A wish list feature I have is for the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) to respond more promptly. Their response time needs improvement; while they do not take excessive time, it can be enhanced, especially given it is a security product.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
911,473 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business56
Midsize Enterprise23
Large Enterprise36
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise16
Large Enterprise31
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
It is a little bit expensive, but the pricing model is acceptable, though a reduction would make it more competitive with leaders such as Palo Alto.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The false positive rate is a concern, but I could recommend improvements where false positives have to be minimized better. This all depends on how the rules are customized and configured, and it c...
What is your primary use case for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The main purpose is to have network security through machine learning, which can offer threat detection and intelligence for my endpoints, and I am looking for application security. I am looking fo...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?
F5 Advanced WAF is somewhat costly compared to other vendors, but it is worth the investment due to the stability it provides to the environment and infrastructure.
What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify wh...
What is your primary use case for F5 Advanced WAF?
My main use case for F5 Advanced WAF is to protect external and internal applications from cyber attacks and to prevent malicious payloads and malicious data from reaching servers. Even if maliciou...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. F5 Advanced WAF and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
911,473 professionals have used our research since 2012.