

OpenText Core Application Security and Check Point WAF both compete in the application security category. OpenText Core appears to have an advantage in vulnerability management and integration, while Check Point WAF excels in AI-driven threat detection and low false positives.
Features: OpenText Core Application Security offers comprehensive integration with a variety of tools, seamless vulnerability management, and robust scanning capabilities for diverse applications. Check Point WAF provides superior AI-powered threat detection, fast automated attack responses, and low false positive rates for security analytics and dynamic threat management.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security needs expanded programming language support, intelligent heuristic analysis, and better integration with development tools. Check Point WAF could benefit from enhanced performance, improved latency in login processes, and more responsive support, along with pricing adjustments for smaller enterprises.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security is known for smooth deployments but needs better technical support integration and faster response times. Check Point WAF offers straightforward cloud deployment with satisfactory but improvable support coordination and resolution times.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is seen as cost-effective with scalable licensing enhancing ROI despite high initial costs. Check Point WAF, though pricey, justifies its expense with its advanced security features, appealing to larger enterprises while providing significant ROI through distinct security enhancements.
When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is.
When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.
Most of the operations happen in the background, so I do not spend much time on it.
There is definitive ROI if OpenText Core Application Security is deployed properly; it substantially reduces efforts in securing the solution while averting various application-related risks.
They need to increase the number of people for 24/7 support.
They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution.
I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.
Support tickets often stay open for one month to three months, which leads to customer frustration.
I had direct interaction with them, which facilitated how we onboarded Fortify.
The technical support from OpenText is very good.
If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.
They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.
Check Point CloudGuard WAF's scalability is very good.
If a customer wants to know the tools and the technology used for their application to scan their application, they provide less information on that.
OpenText Core Application Security is highly scalable; it is running on the cloud, and elasticity is one of the best points of a cloud environment.
Fortify is superior to many solutions because of its scalability and that it does not require massive compute capabilities for its SAST and sandboxing features.
It is very stable.
It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see.
I did not have any issues in the last three years during which I had more than ten critical services running on CloudGuard.
OpenText Core Application Security is stable and has minimal downtime, benefitting from AWS cloud availability.
The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.
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.
A machine learning-based adaptive mode could help the WAF learn over time and auto-tune policies.
It would be beneficial if Fortify could check for CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) in third-party libraries, which I currently use a separate dependency checker tool for.
One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together.
I would say OpenText Core Application Security is not very user-friendly in terms of price; it is quite high.
It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.
It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors.
I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.
Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions.
It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies.
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Fortify helps me find serious issues, such as developers inadvertently leaving access tokens, including API access tokens, in the source code.
On demand you have two levels of reports: the first from the tool, which is the same as we can get from Fortify on-premises, and a next level reporting made by experts from OpenText, leading to a more condensed and precise report as level three.
Additionally, you can integrate Fortify in CICD pipeline, so you get real-time updates about the security issues in your pipeline.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Check Point CloudGuard WAF | 0.6% |
| OpenText Core Application Security | 3.1% |
| Other | 96.3% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 35 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 20 |
| Large Enterprise | 19 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 18 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 45 |
Check Point WAF uses AI-driven threat prevention with seamless API integration, offering advanced DDoS protection. It auto-learns attack patterns, updates protection, and minimizes false positives. Its interface simplifies policy management for secure web applications across cloud environments.
Check Point WAF combines AI-driven threat detection with streamlined policy management to provide effective security for web applications and APIs. It offers zero-day protection, threat intelligence, and advanced DDoS protection. Users enjoy robust logging and compliance management across multi-cloud environments. Integration is smooth, with reduced reliance on signatures, facilitating multi-layer security. Despite its strengths, users note areas for improvement, such as latency and pricing, and call for enhancements in API security, real-time monitoring, and reporting. Challenges include integration complexity and limited technical support accessibility. Effective application security across dynamic environments is a key offering.
What are Check Point WAF's key features?Check Point WAF finds particular relevance in industries requiring robust cybersecurity measures such as finance, healthcare, and e-commerce. These sectors benefit from its advanced threat detection and adaptive security policy management, crucial for securing sensitive data across multi-cloud infrastructures. By managing API usage efficiently, it helps maintain regulatory compliance while ensuring optimal operation. Enhanced traffic logging and malware threat management add to its appeal for organizations focusing on securing transactions and sensitive information.
OpenText Core Application Security offers robust features like static and dynamic scanning, real-time vulnerability tracking, and seamless integration with development platforms, designed to enhance code security and reduce operational costs.
OpenText Core Application Security is a cloud-based, on-demand service providing accurate and deep scanning capabilities with detailed reporting. Its integrations with development platforms ensure an enhanced security layer in the development lifecycle, benefiting users by lowering operational costs and facilitating efficient remediation. The platform addresses needs for intuitive interfaces, API support, and comprehensive vulnerability assessments, helping improve code security and accelerate time-to-market. Despite its strengths, challenges exist around false positives, report clarity, and language support, alongside confusing pricing and package options. Enhancements are sought in areas like CI/CD pipeline configuration, report visualization, scan times, and integration with third-party tools such as GitLab, container scanning, and software composition analysis.
What features define OpenText Core Application Security?Industries like mobile applications, e-commerce, and banking leverage OpenText Core Application Security for its ability to identify vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. Integrating seamlessly with DevSecOps and security auditing processes, this tool supports developers in writing safer code, ensuring secure application deployment and enhancing software assurance.
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.