Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and Forcepoint are both solutions in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.7, while Forcepoint is ranked #44. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 0.7% mindshare in DLP, compared to Forcepoint’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Forcepoint users who would recommend it.

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Read 76 Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) reviews

10,727 Views
1,609 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Pr...

Read 4 Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP reviews

1,289 Views
1,276 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Pr...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

Check Point WAF and Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection compete in the security product category with Check Point WAF being more budget-friendly, while Forcepoint stands out for its feature-rich nature.

Features: Check Point WAF provides web application protection, adaptable security, and automated management. Forcepoint offers dynamic data loss prevention, real-time threat adaptation, and comprehensive data security capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Check Point could enhance its AI features, integration with third-party tools, and scalability options. Forcepoint may improve its initial configuration complexity, user interface intuitiveness, and response time flexibility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Check Point WAF is straightforward to deploy with responsive support, enabling a quick setup. Forcepoint offers flexible deployment but involves more initial configuration, backed by strong customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Check Point WAF is cost-effective and offers promising ROI, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. Forcepoint has a higher initial cost but delivers substantial ROI, justified by its data protection emphasis.

To learn more, read our detailed Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Report (Updated: July 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

July 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 909,725 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 Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

8th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (5th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th), DevSecOps (2nd)

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Pr...

Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

44th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

5.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 0.7%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is 0.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)	0.7%
Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP	0.9%
Other	98.4%

Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Featured Reviews

Krishnakumar Mahadevan

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.

Read full review

SandeepKumar33

Cyber Security Engineer at Infratech Co

Policy management has improved data protection but configuration and encrypted traffic remain challenging

In my perspective, there are several things that need to be improved in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP, such as the inability to monitor some encrypted data or data leaking in incognito mode. Additionally, Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP cannot monitor encrypted applications such as Microsoft Teams because it is end-to-end encrypted. In terms of additional features, there are many aspects of Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP that need improvement. Right now, two or three items are necessary, such as testing every policy to make sure they are configured correctly. We cannot go directly to production due to the extensive fine-tuning required, which typically takes two to three weeks to monitor the policy after customization. A lot of time has been consumed in the two to three weeks needed, which is something that should be reduced. Additionally, concerning the predefined policies, we cannot see the backend condition or backend script, which makes it difficult to modify the predefined policy.

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

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides great visibility and flexibility to use multiple FQDNs in a single load balancer."

"Ease of deployment and efficiency, particularly for API security, are phenomenal."

"Overall, the product is excellent."

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

"Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is the best option on the market, and it is good for us."

"By using a cloud application security solution, our company can save costs by reducing the need for additional security hardware and software and improving operational efficiency."

"The automated policy creation and threat intelligence have helped my team by reducing manual configuration and saving time, and the threat intelligence updates ensure immediate protection against new threats, simplifying daily operations and improving response speed."

"We have prevented many potential threats that could be a major setback to our set goals."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pros

"We chose Forcepoint as part of our cybersecurity strategy, and one of the key expectations was to prevent data leakage."

"The most valuable features in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP include policy management and endpoint status, as well as supplementary servers, OCR, IRR, and additional features."

"Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is purely a DLP-based solution, which makes it the best option available."

"It primarily influences policy enforcement, cloud application access control, and endpoint network coverage."

Cons

"For now, the product is doing all that I need, however, I need the support of IPv6."

"Pricing and licensing are really expensive for this product. While it provides a very good security level, the price for each service is high."

"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."

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

"The solution should improve false-positives."

"I see areas for improvement primarily on the reporting functionality front, as there are very limited functions in the reporting section."

"The false positive rate is a concern, but I could recommend improvements where false positives have to be minimized better."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) cons

"From an end user's perspective, it's not always clear what's happening with the DLP. It would be beneficial to have more use cases available, perhaps on a countrywide basis."

"The deployment is a little bit difficult. It requires two to three separate servers for databases and the application."

"The SaaS solution needs improvement, especially the malware-centric part, although the CASB is better but mostly data-centric. The after-sale support could also be improved."

"In my perspective, there are several things that need to be improved in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP, such as the inability to monitor some encrypted data or data leaking in incognito mode."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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"

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

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

"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."

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

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

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

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

"The licensing cost is roughly 90 US dollars per year, per license."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Outsourcing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

Construction Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	54
Midsize Enterprise	23
Large Enterprise	34

No data available

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is very costly, especially in Sri Lanka, but the compliance ROI justifies the investment.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?

I have experience with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and Netwrix Endpoint Protector, as I am currently working with both. My experience is primarily with Forcepoint. I am mostly working with Forc...

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 7% of the time

Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Data Loss Prevention vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 7% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 6% of the time

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

Compared 6% of the time

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

Compared 6% of the time

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Competitors

Cyera vs Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP

Compared 34% of the time

Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform vs Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP

Compared 26% of the time

Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention vs Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP

Compared 9% of the time

Fortra's Digital Guardian vs Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP

Compared 8% of the time

Proofpoint Email Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vs Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP

Compared 6% of the time

More Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

August 2026

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) report

Download Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) product report

Buyer's Guide

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP

August 2026

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP report

Download Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

Check Point WAF offers a robust security framework with AI-driven threat detection and seamless integration, protecting applications and APIs in multi-cloud environments.

Effective in preemptively blocking threats through AI and machine learning, Check Point WAF reduces false positives and operational workload. Its integration capabilities and threat intelligence provide comprehensive protection against zero-day attacks, while centralized management facilitates cost-effective and insightful threat reporting.

What are the main features of Check Point WAF?

AI and Machine Learning: Preemptively blocks threats without signature reliance.
Centralized Management: Simplifies oversight and reduces costs.
Threat Intelligence: Enhances security posture against zero-day attacks.
Ease of Deployment: Quick setup with user-friendly interface.
Comprehensive Protection: Guards against SQL injection and DDoS attacks.

What benefits should be considered by users?

Reduced False Positives: Minimizes operational interruptions.
Cost-effectiveness: Reduces management overhead.
Insightful Reporting: Enables swift response to threats.
Seamless Integration: Enhances security processes with existing tools.

Check Point WAF is employed in industries securing web applications and APIs, especially in multi-cloud environments. It effectively protects backend services, prevents unauthorized access, and monitors traffic, making it suitable for businesses with diverse infrastructures. It ensures compliance with security standards and adapts to fluctuating traffic patterns.

Check Point Software Technologies

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP offers dynamic security measures tailored to data protection needs, ensuring sensitive information is safeguarded efficiently.

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is designed to provide a balanced approach to data loss prevention by adapting security measures based on real-time risk assessment. This innovative system prioritizes protecting sensitive information while allowing for seamless workflow integration, making it a suitable choice for organizations looking to enhance their data protection strategies.

What are the key features of Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?

Dynamic Policy Enforcement: Automatically adjusts security policies in real-time based on risk analysis.
User Behavior Analysis: Monitors and analyzes user actions to identify potential threats.
Comprehensive Data Coverage: Offers protection for data across various environments and platforms.
Risk-Adaptive Responses: Provides threat mitigation options based on the assessed level of risk.

What benefits and ROI can be expected?

Reduced Data Breach Risks: By dynamically adjusting security measures, threats are mitigated proactively.
Operational Efficiency: Allows seamless integration of security with daily operations, minimizing disruptions.
Scalable Protection: Easily adapts to organizational growth and evolving security needs.
Cost-Effective Security: Optimizes resource allocation by focusing on high-risk areas.

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is particularly effective in industries with stringent data protection requirements such as healthcare, finance, and government. It adapts its security posture to the specific risks faced in these sectors, addressing compliance mandates and safeguarding sensitive information efficiently.

Forcepoint

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

July 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Forcepoint, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Data Loss Prevention (DLP). Updated: July 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vendors.

We monitor all Data Loss Prevention (DLP) 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.