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 (4th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), 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 October 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 4.9%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.6%, up from 6.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)4.9%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing6.6%
Other88.5%
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

"The best feature of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its advanced threat prevention, which is integrated with Check Point threat cloud intelligence providing real-time protection against web application attacks, including zero-day threats, automatically sourced from the threat cloud, Check Point threat intelligence database, analyzing millions of indicators of compromise daily."
"It is a very scalable and stable solution."
"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."
"Its fastest and most outstanding characteristic is ensuring a development line that will not lead to applying applications or code development."
"It helps me sleep at night, providing peace of mind."
"I would definitely recommend this solution because I do not want to implement one more traffic function as I can eliminate the firewall and use Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) alone, thus eliminating Layer 3 traffic directly connecting to my Web Application Firewall."
"We have a strong sense of security assurance when utilizing CloudGuard, as it consistently delivers outstanding protection capabilities."
"The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"My experience with technical support has been good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The solution is easy to use."
 

Cons

"The negative aspect is that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) uses Check Point Harmony in its management console, which sometimes creates latency when connecting to or opening the platform."
"The reporting can be improved."
"A gap for improvement for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is the learning curve, as better training modules could help end customers, and pricing and reporting functionality could also be improved."
"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."
"It was costlier than other solutions."
"The enhancements are needed in the logging system and log management processes."
"For Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), the negative aspects include the very high price, complex licensing, and the need for specialized trained people to configure it, which is comparatively more complicated than other firewalls like Palo Alto and FortiGate."
"I face issues with the UI part of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), as it malfunctions sometimes."
"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."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed."
"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."
"This solution is very expensive."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"The scanner could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"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."
"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"I find the pricing to be reasonable."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"The price is okay."
"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."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.
914,938 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.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.