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

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs GitHub Advanced Security 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
7.1
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (8th)
GitHub Advanced Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 GitHub Advanced Security is 3.3%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.6%
GitHub Advanced Security3.3%
Other96.1%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

MK
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.
Devendiran Kandan - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Security scanning has protected our pipelines but currently needs clearer dashboards and controls
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inline product, I'm not seeing user-friendly things in GitHub Advanced Security. Dependent bots and the secret detection are good compared to others. However, code scanning is not finding very good results based on pipeline where it will scan and do code scanning. While build, before building and deploying the code, we want to block or do an advanced model, but it is not supporting. During deployment, code scanning is not good. It is a little complicated. It is not a straightforward method we can complete. We need expertise to get the full benefit, and troubleshooting sometimes requires going through that. The security overview dashboard is not really clear. It's not showing centralized information; each repo is showing, but if you compare it with competitors, it is not that great. Mainly in the centralized dashboard, enterprise level needs to improve. A centralized way where we can get that overall view is needed, and we want that code scanning and blocking deployments based on security. There are AI improvements, but however, it is not so easy to configure. It is multiple windows we need to go through and make changes or configure that. A few things we need to enable going into settings, and a few things we can find out in security. One product where security means the security dashboard should cover everything, but it is going here and there in many places.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively."
"Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security."
"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."
"The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage."
"I have thousands of exposed websites and APIs. Being able to control what is happening and try to prevent any attack is the best feature."
"The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities."
"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce the cost of ownership for our web application firewall by 50%."
"The best features of GitHub Advanced Security are its flexibility and the multiple options it has compared to other tools."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"The initial setup was straightforward and completed in a matter of minutes."
"GitHub Advanced Security uses artificial intelligence in the backend, specifically CodeQL, to analyze code and provide fewer but more reliable findings, so there are less false positives."
"I have not experienced any performance or stability issues with GitHub Advanced Security."
 

Cons

"While the GUI allows configuration for application-related features, specific definitions cannot be modified through the code."
"The documentation of each of the tools that they offer needs to be better."
"The user interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."
"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved in several ways. We have faced slowness issues in our network after onboarding it on any application."
"The user interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."
"Pricing and licensing are really expensive for this product. While it provides a very good security level, the price for each service is high."
"Open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"An area of GitHub Advanced Security that has room for improvement is customization."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"For GitHub Advanced Security, I would like to see more support for various programming languages."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"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"
"The solution is expensive."
"The current licensing model, which relies on active commitments, poses challenges, particularly in predicting and managing growth."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
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
9%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business35
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
 

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 ...
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...
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.
What needs improvement with GitHub Advanced Security?
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inli...
What is your primary use case for GitHub Advanced Security?
I'm working with software development nowadays. As a process, we are using the dependent bot alerts and the code scanning for Java, and some of the code scanning is happening. Security secrets in c...
What advice do you have for others considering GitHub Advanced Security?
Dependent bots and the secret detection are good compared to others. However, code scanning is not finding very good results based on pipeline where it will scan and do code scanning. While build, ...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. GitHub Advanced Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.