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

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs ReversingLabs 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)
ReversingLabs
Ranking in Application Security Tools
43rd
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (44th), Container Security (48th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (25th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (30th), Software Supply Chain Security (19th)
 

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 ReversingLabs is 0.7%, up from 0.2% 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%
ReversingLabs0.7%
Other98.7%
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.
CSOInfor4e0d - PeerSpot reviewer
CSO - Information Security at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We use the product for data enrichment or downloading malicious programs that we are otherwise unable to find
It's integrated in our product. We leverage the API, but it doesn't contribute to increasing the release time of the product itself. While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased. Respective scripts are available, but those scripts which are available are typically not of very high quality. This could be an area where the company can generally improve. It is not a big issue for us, since we have our own development team, but it could be an issue for other companies who are less mature.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The DirectStorage gives me a vision that I did not have of the check that occurs on the web servers."
"In short, Check Point CloudGuard WAF is a powerful tool."
"We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results."
"I rate it ten out of ten."
"The biggest benefit from Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I saw is that it comes with one solution that completely outperforms its competitors."
"CloudGuard Application Security is a one-stop unified solution for securing workloads and IT assets most efficiently."
"Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."
"The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature."
"ReversingLabs has a large sample size."
"As far as the malware repository is concerned, it's extensive. It's a good source for finding samples, where we are unable to find them on other channels or by leveraging other sources."
"We had nothing in the environment to do such analysis, so it's been a savior in many ways."
"As far as the availability of the content is generally concerned and the number of malicious programs that can be looked up in the repository, these are very extensive."
"We have complete faith that it can do that for us, and can do it at scale."
"As far as static analysis information is concerned, we use most of the information that is available in order to determine whether or not we might be dealing with a malware variant. This includes information that is related to Java rules. This is also related to malware families indicated or specific malicious software variants that are labeled by name."
"The automated static analysis of malware is the most valuable feature. Its detection abilities are very good. It hits all of the different platforms out there, platforms that see the items in the wild."
"It offers reports on a great many more file types than the other analysis solutions we have. It can give us a more in-depth analysis and better reporting on a larger number of file types. It also gives us a more comprehensive score on a number of things as well, and that's why we're using it as a front-end filter. It gives us more information... It's valuable because of its depth of information, as well as the breadth it gives us. There aren't a lot of tools that cover all of the different file types."
 

Cons

"The trial version should be extended further so that QA test engineers can actually test the utilities in a real sense and can provide the maximum amount of feedback for enhancements."
"Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability."
"The User interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."
"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."
"I would like to be able to integrate the theme of Artificial Intelligence to help review issues and to monitor and view the security issue while also suggesting and interpreting and additionally configuring solutions - basically, acting as an interpreter."
"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is a strong solution, but there are a few areas where it could be improved, particularly the user interface for managing custom rules and exceptions, which could be more intuitive and streamlined to reduce the learning curve for new users, especially when deploying for the first time."
"In terms of features, I do not have any negatives. Their integration is extremely quick. It is better than others I have been involved with in the past. Their pricing model, however, can be better."
"I would like to see if we could do a little bit more of bulk uploading of hash sets. Right now, I can only do them individually."
"I would like to see if we could do a little bit more of bulk uploading of hash sets."
"The solution needs to improve integrations."
"While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased. Respective scripts are available, but those scripts which are available are typically not of very high quality."
"The product support could be better at times. Sometimes, the resources that they provide could be of higher quality."
"We would really like further integration with our threat intelligence platform, which is called ThreatConnect. We would also really like further integrations with an endpoint protection product we use called Tanium."
"While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased."
"We would really like further integration with our threat intelligence platform, which is called ThreatConnect. We would also really like further integrations with an endpoint protection product we use called Tanium. The reason I mentioned both of these is that ReversingLabs claims to have extensive integrations with both of them, but they did not work for us."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"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."
"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."
"As Infiniti customers, the pricing is manageable, as we have allowances dedicated to each Check Point product. The price is not as high compared to other options I have dealt with in the past."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"Currently, the license number of lookups that we purchased has not been reached yet, because the integration has only recently been completed. However, our usage is expected and planned to increase over the next couple of months."
"We have a yearly contract based on the number of queries and malicious programs which can be processed."
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%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business35
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise19
No data available
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
ReversingLabs Titanium, ReversingLabs secure.software
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Financial services, healthcare, government, manufacturing, oil & gas, telecommunications, information technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. ReversingLabs and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.