Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs Kiuwan comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Check Point Software Technologies and Kiuwan are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.7, while Kiuwan is ranked #34. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 1.1% mindshare in AS, compared to Kiuwan’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of Kiuwan 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

Kiuwan

Read 23 Kiuwan reviews

4,202 Views
3,320 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Kiuwan

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

Kiuwan and Check Point WAF compete in the domain of application security solutions, focusing on code quality and web application protection respectively. Check Point WAF seems to have the upper hand given its advanced security capabilities, such as AI-driven threat prevention and zero-day attack protection, which are critical for handling diverse IT challenges.

Features: Kiuwan provides quick code scanning, integration with Jenkins and JIRA, and supports various programming languages. Check Point WAF offers AI-driven threat prevention, zero-day attack protection, and API security, making it ideal for comprehensive web application protection.

Room for Improvement: Kiuwan can enhance language and framework support, UI, and integration with Azure DevOps. Check Point WAF could simplify its UI, reduce setup complexity, and improve API security depth and bot protection.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Kiuwan supports on-premises and hybrid cloud environments with fast deployment but needs to improve customer support. Check Point WAF offers broader cloud environment support and generally positive customer service, though it faces initial setup complexity.

Pricing and ROI: Kiuwan is cost-effective with a subscription model based on lines of code and offers good time-to-market and code quality improvements. Check Point WAF is pricier regarding licensing and setup costs but is justified by its comprehensive features. Both are seen as valuable investments, with Kiuwan focusing on cost-effectiveness and Check Point WAF offering stronger security features at a higher cost.

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

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Kiuwan

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 915,325 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)

Kiuwan

Ranking in Application Security Tools

34th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (29th)

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 Kiuwan is 1.2%, up from 1.1% 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%
Kiuwan	1.2%
Other	97.7%

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

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala

CyberRisk Solution Advisor at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees

Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement

Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.

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 offers high performance and improved productivity for users."

"Despite the complex nature and high price, I think the product is worth buying because it is effective."

"The integration with other Microsoft products, especially Visual Studio, is seamless."

"Its fastest and most outstanding characteristic is ensuring a development line that will not lead to applying applications or code development."

"Its main value and what we liked the most is its powerful AI."

"The implementation of this tool for security management and control is very simple."

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

"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."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pros

"For the moment, this is a solution that I could recommend."

"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."

"We have had an improvement of 20% in our time to market and it significantly improved the quality of our code."

"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."

"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."

"From the tool itself, the developer can run an analysis with the same quality, and with this tool, every developer has the opportunity to do an unlimited analysis."

"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."

"Customer service is excellent."

More Kiuwan pros

Cons

"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."

"We need to have many of the baselines or development guides providing less complex writing or development."

"I do not know if it is already there, but I would like to have complete visibility between the posture management and firewall as a service."

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

"A feature we'd like to see in the future is something that could protect against other attack vectors, with a focus on application protection."

"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."

"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."

"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

"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."

"Improvement could be made with the integration of the programming tools."

"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."

"For mobile development, we are not too experienced, and it is not the perfect tool because the integration with certain products is very manual."

"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."

"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."

"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."

"More languages and frameworks would enhance this tool."

More Kiuwan cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."

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

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

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

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

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

"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

"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."

"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."

"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."

"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."

"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."

"Check with your account manager."

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

915,325 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

12%

University

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

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	16
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	6

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 Kiuwan

Compared 16% of the time

Veracode vs Kiuwan

Compared 12% of the time

GitHub vs Kiuwan

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Kiuwan

Compared 5% of the time

Snyk vs Kiuwan

Compared 4% of the time

More Kiuwan 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

Kiuwan

September 2026

Download Kiuwan 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

Kiuwan offers comprehensive security and vulnerability testing capabilities, focusing on code analysis, fast scanning, and detailed risk assessments. Supporting many technologies, it integrates well into development workflows to ensure code compliance and enhance code quality.

Known for its application portfolio governance, Kiuwan provides fast scanning and reporting features, alongside an intuitive interface. It supports languages from COBOL to JavaScript, offering modular capabilities and security integration for continuous deployment. Developers can perform efficient local or cloud-based scans, benefiting from action plans for better code correction. Integration with tools like Jenkins facilitates quick processing and detailed risk assessments, while challenges remain in language support expansion and smoother integration with Azure DevOps and popular IDEs. Enhanced frameworks and mobile development testing would amplify its utility, with users seeking improved navigation, report downloading, and technical support.

What are the most important features of Kiuwan?

Fast Scanning: Provides quick scans for immediate insights.
Reporting: Robust features for generating detailed reports.
Intuitive UI: Easy-to-navigate interface.
Technology Coverage: Supports a range of languages from COBOL to JS.
Tool Integration: Seamlessly integrates with Jenkins for CI/CD processes.
Modularity: Allows specific models for targeted analysis.

What benefits or ROI should users look for in Kiuwan reviews?

Enhanced Code Security: Identifies vulnerabilities swiftly and efficiently.
Continuous Integration: Facilitates ongoing security assessments.
Improved Code Compliance: Helps maintain adherence to coding standards.
Actionable Insights: Provides risk assessments with actionable recommendations.

In industries focused on software development, Kiuwan is integral for security and vulnerability assessments. It's embedded into workflows to analyze, detect and correct vulnerabilities, addressing threats like SQL injection and adhering to OWASP Top 10. The tool supports secure coding practices and performance evaluation, aiding organizations in maintaining rigorous security standards.

Kiuwan

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Kiuwan

September 2026

Free Report: Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Kiuwan

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

915,325 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Kiuwan 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.