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

Acunetix vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) 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
6.7
Acunetix boosts security by automating vulnerability detection, saving time and cost, and aiding in application risk management.
Sentiment score
6.4
Check Point WAF enhances security and efficiency, providing cost savings and significant ROI, with anticipated long-term benefits.
It saves a significant amount of time by covering attack surfaces.
Information Security Engineer at Tübitak Bilgem
I have seen a return on investment, as Acunetix helps reduce the man-days and effort needed for scanning bulk applications through automated assessments.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
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.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.6
Acunetix technical support is generally good, responsive, but occasionally struggles with familiarity and timely resolution of complex issues.
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.
For high-severity issues, they reach out within two to three hours, and for critical issues, a response is received within 15 minutes.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
The technical support from Invicti is very good and fast.
Information Security Engineer at Tübitak Bilgem
Support staff not being familiar with the problem.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
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
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Acunetix offers strong scalability and efficiency for large enterprises despite some limitations, notably lacking Linux support.
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.
Acunetix can handle increasing workloads and more applications easily.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
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
Acunetix is highly stable and reliable, with minor upgrade glitches, rare bugs, and effective customer support.
Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point WAF stability is highly rated, reliable, with excellent performance, minimal disruptions, and significant user commendations.
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
 

Room For Improvement

Acunetix users seek improved false positive handling, pricing, API testing, mobile integration, performance, and technical support.
Check Point WAF users face challenges with pricing, interface, integration, support, setup complexity, and desire improved functionality and performance.
The main concern is related to false positives; Acunetix needs to work on identifying valid and invalid findings.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
I could supply it with maybe a Swagger file or a JSON file, and Acunetix would pick it up, scan all the endpoints according to the OWASP Top Ten, and give me remediation and actionable remediation reports.
Team Lead, Application Security at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Acunetix should have better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps.
CEO at Xcelliti
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
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users see Acunetix as valuable but costly, with licensing inflexibility and potential for unexpected price increases.
Enterprise users view Check Point WAF pricing as high yet justified by its features, flexibility, and competitive market alignment.
The pricing cost is affordable for small and mid-sized organizations, and when compared to Checkmarx, it is significantly affordable, as Checkmarx is quite expensive.
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
We secured a special licensing model for penetration testing companies, which is cost-effective.
Information Security Engineer at Tübitak Bilgem
The pricing of Acunetix is pretty expensive and could be improved.
Senior Business Development Manager at Intouch World
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
 

Valuable Features

Acunetix offers fast, accurate vulnerability detection with efficient scanning, reporting, and ease of use, enhancing web security effortlessly.
Check Point WAF offers seamless deployment, AI threat detection, Azure integration, reduced false positives, and comprehensive API security.
Its most valuable role is in enhancing security by identifying potential vulnerabilities efficiently.
Senior Business Development Manager at Intouch World
The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities.
CEO at Xcelliti
The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
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
 

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Application Security Tools
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th), Vulnerability Management (30th), DevSecOps (5th)
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) (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.3%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 0.6%, up from 0.1% 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%
Acunetix2.3%
Other97.1%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
Identifies vulnerabilities across bulk web applications but needs better support and cleaner reports
The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers. The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning. In terms of reporting, Acunetix is excellent because it can generate different types of reports, such as an executive summary report, detailed reports, and developer reports that can be shared directly with developers. Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and OWASP. Acunetix provides a centralized report with compliance-related aspects and a vulnerability timeline, effectively helping reduce vulnerabilities and save time.
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.
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
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
21%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business37
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
My main use of Acunetix is to scan my web application. I mostly deal with web applications and with Acunetix Network Security Component, but I have not activated the network component before and wi...
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I am still working with Acunetix, and we have even moved to their new platform, Invicti. I have requested a demo for Acunetix DeepScan technology, but I have yet to go through DeepScan. That was th...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?
I would say the pricing is average, but still, it is higher than low.
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 ...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Orange España, Paschoalotto
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,510 professionals have used our research since 2012.