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

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs Mend.io 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.4
Check Point WAF enhances security and efficiency, providing cost savings and significant ROI, with anticipated long-term benefits.
Sentiment score
6.7
Mend.io enhances ROI by automating security, improving efficiency, and integrating seamlessly into workflows, saving time and costs.
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.
Mend.io has provided a good return on investment by significantly reducing vulnerabilities.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.4
Check Point WAF support is praised for responsiveness and expertise but cited for occasional delays and needs improvement in issue resolution.
Sentiment score
6.6
Mend.io customer service is proactive and responsive, praised for timely solutions, technical expertise, and efficient issue resolution.
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
They prioritize providing the best experience to large organizations like ours, belonging to the Fortune 100.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
I have noticed that the speed to respond has decreased over time.
VP at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
Mend.io provides pretty good support.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Check Point WAF offers excellent scalability, user-friendly management, and seamless integration for multi-cloud and hybrid environments, scoring highly for scalability.
Sentiment score
7.5
Mend.io scales seamlessly with organizational growth, integrating into workflows and DevOps tools, enhancing security and collaboration effortlessly.
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
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point WAF stability is highly rated, reliable, with excellent performance, minimal disruptions, and significant user commendations.
Sentiment score
7.7
Mend.io is stable with occasional slowdowns, recommended on Chrome/Firefox, and improved by ongoing enhancements and updates.
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
Mend.io is very stable; we did not have any issues.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
AI integration in code security tools like Mend.io is still in its early stages and relatively immature.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point WAF users face challenges with pricing, interface, integration, support, setup complexity, and desire improved functionality and performance.
Mend.io users request better notifications, improved container scanning, clearer documentation, enhanced UI, flexible pricing, and reduced false positives.
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
That's not a limitation of Mend.io; I think that's a general problem with any tool in the market because no tool in the market will actually know what portion of the code I'm actually using from that particular library if it is vulnerable or not.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
The actual challenge is how easy it is to integrate it in the early phase of the software development life cycle.
Principal Architect at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
I strongly recommend that they start working with AI for the reporting part.
VP at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users view Check Point WAF pricing as high yet justified by its features, flexibility, and competitive market alignment.
Mend.io's pricing is seen as affordable and clear, yet varies by developer count, posing challenges for startups.
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
The cost of Mend.io is competitive, being quite low compared to others.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
 

Valuable Features

Check Point WAF offers seamless deployment, AI threat detection, Azure integration, reduced false positives, and comprehensive API security.
Mend.io provides comprehensive vulnerability detection, license management, and integration tools to enhance security and decision-making practices effectively.
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.
Amministratore Della Sicurezza Di Rete at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
We find it 100% accurate in detecting vulnerabilities.
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
It handles Application Security, performing SCA SAST and container scanning.
Principal Architect at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
The features I find most valuable in Mend.io are the ease of use; it is very easy to access and integrate.
VP at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
 

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
60
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th)
Mend.io
Ranking in Application Security Tools
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (7th), Static Code Analysis (6th), Software Supply Chain Security (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 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 Mend.io is 2.5%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)0.6%
Mend.io2.5%
Other96.9%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mohan Janarthanan - PeerSpot reviewer
Associate Vice President at Novac Technology Solutions
Integrated web protection has reduced breaches and now prevents attacks across critical apps
I have been using it for six months, and the biggest advantages for me are that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) offers more than other F5 firewalls, which have only application protection called ASM (Application Security Monitoring). In contrast, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) provides protection on IPS along with application protection. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) itself provides an IPS function where I can protect against my Layer 7 traffic, which is not available in other vendors. The traditional WAF does not have the capacity of IPS functions. The intrusion prevention capability, I can only see in Layer 3 functions and stateful functions, which is the traditional firewall capability. Other vendors are keeping this in their Web Application Firewall, but Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has integrated it differently. False positives are significantly less here compared to traditional Web Application Firewalls because they are more focused on the AI front. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) integrates an AI platform within the Web Application itself using API protection with AI and what they call GenAI protection. They excel at creating the profile itself, which is the basic functionality of WAF. Normally, I deploy in preventive mode, which takes some time for learning, but I prefer to operate in preventing mode only.
meetharoon - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Centralized security monitoring has reduced false positives and improves dependency governance
The only area for improvement I would say is that the false positives are nearly zero; everything is mostly like 99 to 99.99% or we can say 100% accurate. There were a few areas for improvement just from the last time I saw; I think the user experience had a little problem. We wanted to have certain reports based on our kind of scenario, but the tool did not allow us to create custom reports. We had asked for some facility and some ability for us to create some custom reports. That would be awesome if they allow us to create custom reports the way we wanted. There is one small area which I don't know whether we should call a tool limitation or a wish list; if I use a library and I don't use all the capabilities of the library but only a portion of it and that portion is not vulnerable, but there is a component which is outdated, that is a problem, even though I don't use that component. Mend.io will discover there is a problem in the whole library; that is correct. That's a valid discovery, but in my case, for example, if I don't use that particular portion, then it actually is not making sense for me, but that's not a limitation of Mend.io; I think that's a general problem with any tool in the market because no tool in the market will actually know what portion of the code I'm actually using from that particular library if it is vulnerable or not.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
896,510 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business37
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise21
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
Pricing is a little bit high compared to other OEMs, and the setup cost was handled by a partner.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
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 cost can be higher than traditional WAF solution...
What is your primary use case for CloudGuard for Application Security?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application and API protection. I can provide a scenario where I used Check Point CloudGuard WAF to defend against an SQL injection attack on a web app. It ...
How does WhiteSource compare with SonarQube?
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...
How does WhiteSource compare with Black Duck?
We researched Black Duck but ultimately chose WhiteSource when looking for an application security tool. WhiteSource is a software solution that enables agile open source security and license compl...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mend.io?
Mend.io SCA offers a competitive pricing structure that is relatively affordable compared to similar solutions in the market. This makes it an attractive option for organizations looking to enhance...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
WhiteSource, Mend SCA, Mend.io Supply Chain Defender, Mend SAST
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Microsoft, Autodesk, NCR, Target, IBM, vodafone, Siemens, GE digital, KPMG, LivePerson, Jack Henry and Associates
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. Mend.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,510 professionals have used our research since 2012.