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

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs w3af 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 Application Security Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th), DevSecOps (2nd)
w3af
Ranking in Application Security Tools
45th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 w3af is 0.7%, up from 0.3% 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)1.1%
w3af0.7%
Other98.2%
Application Security Tools
 

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.
OS
Information Security Advisor, CISO & CIO, Docutek Services at Docutek Services
It's buggy and seems to try to do too many things, but having this on a USB drive has been valuable.
I tried to install this on numerous systems and eventually, with help, I got it running. It needs far too many dependencies installed and there's too much messing about to be of much use. Once running, it's buggy and begs the question can it be relied upon? Even within Kali it reports website time-outs, yet Zap or Burp are able to do a successful scan. I wanted this to work so much and be able to use it as an additional check of my results but have now binned it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most effective CloudGuard feature for threat prevention is its web app protection."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies."
"CloudGuard WAF has been great."
"The DirectStorage gives me a vision that I did not have of the check that occurs on the web servers."
"The tool's most valuable feature is AI, which makes operations easier. Moreover, it is easy to deploy."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has been especially helpful here, automatically learning and adjusting protection without requiring constant manual tuning."
"You can maintain a legal framework structure at all times."
"It has allowed us to use components with known vulnerabilities, which have been prevented based on their multiple databases that have correlated incidents, helping the development of applications to be fast, efficient, and safe, which is what we were looking for."
"The best free software for pen testing web applications."
 

Cons

"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."
"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."
"You need to know exactly the system. You cannot have someone running the system if they don't have the knowledge to do so."
"The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good."
"The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially."
"There are occasions when it interfaces with other systems, leading to a loss of visibility."
"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."
"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."
"Unfortunately, once you get around the seemingly strict set of pre-requisites to install it, it is incredibly buggy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"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"
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
919,809 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business57
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise40
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec, Check Point CloudGuard Code Security
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: October 2026.
919,809 professionals have used our research since 2012.