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

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

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 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 DevSecOps
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (5th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (7th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in DevSecOps
11th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 4.8%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.6%, up from 6.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)4.8%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing6.6%
Other88.6%
DevSecOps
 

Featured Reviews

Krishnakumar Mahadevan - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
AP
Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Having a cloud detection response helps to very quickly identify security threats in our environment."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving both security and operational efficiency, with a noticeable reduction in web-based threats, especially automated attacks and vulnerability exploits, thanks to its real-time prevention and reputation filter that has streamlined my workflow through automatic policy updates and integration smoothly with my CI/CD pipelines, allowing my DevOps teams to deploy security without delays."
"CloudGuard WAF has been great."
"Automation has helped a lot to identify and automatically execute policies, rules, and blocks due to its machine learning."
"Among its most outstanding features is the powerful AI in container security; above all, it is one of the most powerful and easy-to-manage solutions."
"Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."
"The data center security system has provided real-time analytics on performance and data configuration processes."
"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
 

Cons

"I am satisfied with the performance and results enhanced by this product since we deployed it."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF's support is only available in English."
"Some challenges with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security include that we noticed FortiGate is much more efficient on AWS, and our team prefers to deploy FortiGate there instead of CloudGuard due to the management challenges on the cloud."
"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."
"Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."
"For the next release, I would suggest considering features like enhanced threat intelligence integration."
"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"My advice to others using Fortify WebInspect is not to use it, there are better solutions in the market."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"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."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"It is extremely affordable and high value for cost."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"The price is okay."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.
914,351 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
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business57
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise40
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
 

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.
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...
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?
I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec, Check Point CloudGuard Code Security
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,351 professionals have used our research since 2012.