Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs Fortify Application Defender comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Check Point Software Technologies and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.7, while OpenText is ranked #33. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 1.1% mindshare in AS, compared to OpenText’s 1.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 81% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Read 81 Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) reviews

12,844 Views
3,853 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Fortify Application Defender

Read 11 Fortify Application Defender reviews

3,685 Views
3,132 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Fortify Application Defender

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

Fortify Application Defender and Check Point WAF are competitors in application security. Check Point WAF is often preferred due to its comprehensive feature set.

Features: Fortify Application Defender offers real-time monitoring, robust security analytics, and effective threat protection. Check Point WAF provides scalability, a wide array of integrated security controls, and emphasizes enterprise-level adaptability.

Room for Improvement: Fortify could enhance its scalability, increase integration with third-party tools, and expand its range of security features. Check Point WAF can improve its user interface, reduce initial deployment complexity, and offer more detailed analytics.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Check Point WAF ensures seamless deployment with extensive documentation and training resources. Fortify Application Defender provides a smooth deployment process but lacks some of the support tools found in Check Point.

Pricing and ROI: Fortify Application Defender is notable for its cost-effectiveness and quick ROI with lower upfront costs. Check Point WAF requires a higher initial investment but offers significant long-term ROI due to its advanced features.

To learn more, read our detailed Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Fortify Application Defender Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Fortify Application Defender

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 915,341 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

4th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th), DevSecOps (2nd)

Fortify Application Defender

Ranking in Application Security Tools

33rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 1.1%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify Application Defender is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)	1.1%
Fortify Application Defender	1.6%
Other	97.3%

Application Security Tools

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

VinothSivam

CTO at Abcl

Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. However, I'm concerned about how it handles an increasing number of lines of code. As the complexity grows, so does the time it takes for the tool to review everything. I want more clarity on how Fortify Application Defender handles multiple threats. We have numerous endpoints, but the tool runs in our pipeline, meaning it operates in the cloud. All our code is configured there, and the tool runs integration testing, unit testing, user testing, and final production code tests. It's a day-to-day experience. It's utilized almost every day as part of our pipeline runs. Each team responsible for integration testing, human testing, user access testing, and preproduction testing runs it whenever they take a 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

"It helps us streamline our revenue streams, and we're spending less money on application security."

"The ability to preemptively block zero day attacks and detect hidden anomalies is exactly its advantage."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has been especially helpful here, automatically learning and adjusting protection without requiring constant manual tuning."

"With the solution, we managed to obtain complete comprehensive visibility of the entire environment in the cloud, thus having better control of each of the resources."

"Since implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), it has helped us to get more business, and along with that, we are able to prevent threats to our organization using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)."

"With the introduction of AI in general, Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides very high accuracy on the data, allowing me to avoid a lot of false positives and saving me time in determining if what I'm seeing is a possible attack."

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

"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce the cost of ownership for our web application firewall by 50%."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pros

"Fortify Application Defender has a few drawbacks, it has its own pros and cons, but it's a good tool to use in any industry."

"The product saves us cost and time."

"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."

"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."

"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."

"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."

"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."

"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."

More Fortify Application Defender pros

Cons

"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."

"We are satisfied with the product because it does what we need it to do, but one thing that I would like to see improved in the product is the protection of our mobile applications. When I migrate the traffic from our mobile application to CloudGuard, we are not getting what we expected."

"The enhancements are needed in the logging system and log management processes."

"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."

"One area for improvement would be making the policy configuration and troubleshooting experience simpler, especially for complex applications and APIs."

"I believe that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) can be improved, as it is currently in a midway position; it is not much better, but it is not bad."

"Deeper and more transparent integration between Cloud Application Security and analysis monitoring tools could be very valuable - although the solution currently offers integrations with third-party security tools."

"I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) cons

"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."

"The licensing can be a little complex."

"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."

"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."

"The false positive rate should be lower."

"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."

"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."

"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."

More Fortify Application Defender cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."

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

"It is extremely affordable and high value for cost."

"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."

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

"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"

"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."

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

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

"The price of this solution could be less expensive."

"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."

"The product’s price is much higher than other tools."

"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."

"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten. It comes as an annual cloud subscription. The tool's pricing is around 50 lakhs."

"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."

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

915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Outsourcing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Construction Company

Financial Services Firm

15%

Construction Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	57
Midsize Enterprise	24
Large Enterprise	40

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	8

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

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

Compared 6% of the time

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

Compared 6% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 5% of the time

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

Compared 5% of the time

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

Compared 5% of the time

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Competitors

SonarQube vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 8% of the time

Klocwork vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 6% of the time

NSFOCUS WVSS vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 4% of the time

More Fortify Application Defender Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

October 2026

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) report

Download Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

September 2026

Download Fortify Application Defender product report

Also Known As

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

HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender

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

Fortify Application Defender offers strong protection by identifying and resolving security defects using machine learning and real-time remediation. Its user-friendly interface simplifies integration in CI/CD workflows and supports security scanning across operating systems and compilers.

Fortify Application Defender is a comprehensive tool for static code analysis and security scanning. It integrates machine learning algorithms to identify vulnerabilities quickly and offers real-time remediation solutions. Its seamless integration with WebInspect allows for tailored rule sets that significantly improve defense against application-specific threats. The tool's efficiency in static and software composition analysis provides actionable repair insights. As part of a DevOps pipeline, it aids in maintaining code quality, helping organizations protect sensitive information within their applications. Additionally, it supports multiple operating systems and environments, allowing users to scan for vulnerabilities in both code and libraries effectively.

What are the key features of Fortify Application Defender?

Security Defect Identification: Uses advanced algorithms to detect security flaws.
Real-time Remediation: Provides immediate solutions for vulnerabilities.
WebInspect Integration: Customizable rule sets enhance protection.
Actionable Insights: Delivers clear repair strategies.
User-friendly Configuration: Easy set-up in CI/CD pipelines.

What benefits should users consider when evaluating Fortify Application Defender?

Scalable Integration: Works with multiple operating systems and compilers.
Improved Code Quality: Prevents exposure of sensitive data.
Efficient Scanning: Reduces time to identify threats.
Customizable Rules: Enhances security measures specific to applications.

Fortify Application Defender is commonly used in industries like banking and finance to secure applications by inspecting source code for vulnerabilities. Companies can integrate it seamlessly into their DevOps pipelines, ensuring that their applications are protected against cyberattacks while maintaining high code quality. They can thereby avoid common risks such as IP and password exposure by leveraging static code analysis and other integrated technologies available within this tool.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Fortify Application Defender

September 2026

Free Report: Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Fortify Application Defender

Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Fortify Application Defender and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Fortify Application Defender 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.