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

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs NGINX App Protect 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.3
Check Point WAF increases ROI by reducing costs, improving efficiency, enhancing security, and offering a pay-as-you-use model.
Sentiment score
5.8
NGINX App Protect offers notable ROI, enhancing security, integrating with CICD pipelines, and providing compliance and time-saving benefits.
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
Check Point WAF's customer support is praised for responsiveness, though some suggest improvements for complex issue handling and 24/7 availability.
Sentiment score
5.8
NGINX App Protect's support is reliable and helpful, though costs and occasional delays affect accessibility for some users.
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
They were quick and efficient when we had issues.
Project Manager at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
I would rate the customer support a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Tech Lead at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Check Point WAF excels in scalability, adapting to diverse cloud environments with a flexible licensing model and SaaS deployment.
Sentiment score
6.1
NGINX App Protect offers strong scalability praised by users, despite challenges with policy limits and deployment delays.
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
The scalability of NGINX App Protect is good and open source at its best.
Tech Lead at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Check Point WAF is highly stable and reliable, with users praising its consistent performance and minimal issues.
Sentiment score
8.4
Users praise NGINX App Protect's stability and reliability, outperforming competitors, handling high traffic efficiently, and receiving high ratings.
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
It is a quality solution, and I would rate its stability as eight out of ten.
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
 

Room For Improvement

Check Point WAF needs UI simplification, better integration, improved documentation, and enhanced AI features for improved user experience.
NGINX App Protect needs enhancements in automation, UI, security, performance, and support, with complex setup and integration issues.
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
There was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service.
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
For now, I think NGINX App Protect is good, but maybe I would like to see the logging feature added.
Dev Ops Engineer at BARQ Systems
The GUI and web GUI configuration could be improved to be easier to manage and use.
Dev Ops Engineer at adesso AG
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise buyers find Check Point WAF pricey but valuable for its features, though pricing complexity varies by company size.
NGINX App Protect offers reasonable annual pricing, ranging from $25,000 to $400,000, aligning with industry-leading solutions.
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

Check Point WAF excels in AI threat detection, seamless cloud integration, user-friendly interface, and minimizing false positives.
NGINX App Protect provides comprehensive security features including automation, real-time threat detection, DDoS protection, and flexible deployment options.
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.
Security Administrator at Regione Marche
The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively.
Information Technology - Infrastructure and Security at Cyprus Development Bank
The most valuable feature is the ability to operate in a DevOps environment and to be configured through API and pipeline by the developers themselves.
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Some threats like injection and running scripts, SQL injections, these all get stopped and rejected by the server.
Dev Ops Engineer at BARQ Systems
Detecting bots and blocking IPs have proven effective for securing applications.
Project Manager at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point WAF (formerly C...
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (5th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (8th), DevSecOps (2nd)
NGINX App Protect
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
19th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (28th), API Security (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 2.0%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NGINX App Protect is 2.1%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)2.0%
NGINX App Protect2.1%
Other95.9%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

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.
Valerio Guaglianone - PeerSpot reviewer
Dev Ops Engineer at adesso AG
Long-term web protection has supported reliable traffic management but needs a simpler interface
NGINX App Protect is a good product. I have used both versions from F5 -also the free version- (I mean the NGINX/NGINX One/App Protect free trial period), and I think it is a good product. It's stable, affordable, and easy to manage. NGINX App Protect is a comprehensive security solution that combines advanced WAF, DoS protection, API security, and DevSecOps automation in a lightweight, scalable package ideal for modern cloud-native architectures. The adaptive machine learning capabilities are truly commendable, as the solution can establish traffic baselines and detect anomalies in real time. It automatically adjusts security policies, minimizing the need for manual intervention and reducing false positives. Additionally, it supports scalable deployment across diverse environments, including on-premises, cloud, Kubernetes, and containers, offering both flexibility and scalability I have experience with the web server, F5 load balancer, and similar products provided by Ergon, for eg. the web application firewall and the Microgateway for K8S. I'm also familiar with F5 BIG-IP products.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business56
Midsize Enterprise23
Large Enterprise36
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise14
 

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 NGINX App Protect?
I will not be able to answer about my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for NGINX App Protect, as something different handles that in my team.
What needs improvement with NGINX App Protect?
I did not face any issues with NGINX App Protect. The only issue that we had is that someone was trying to install the POC for the customer, and he by mistake installed the Instance Manager on the ...
What is your primary use case for NGINX App Protect?
I have been dealing with NGINX App Protect and the WAF policy. I usually recommend NGINX App Protect for banking and telecom, and for anyone that has their own database or servers that they host we...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec, Check Point CloudGuard Code Security
NGINX WAF, NGINX Web Application Firewall
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs. NGINX App Protect and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.