Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Check Point Software Technologies and OpenText are both solutions in the DevSecOps category. Check Point Software Technologies is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.7, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.0. Check Point Software Technologies holds a 4.4% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 6.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Check Point Software Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

Read 76 Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) reviews

10,727 Views
1,824 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

6,513 Views
1,628 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Check Point WAF (formerly C...

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and Check Point WAF compete in web application security. Check Point WAF offers more advanced features, whereas OpenText leads with cost-effective pricing and customer support.

Features: OpenText supports integration, initiative-driven vulnerability scanning, and adaptability for diverse environments. Check Point WAF provides comprehensive threat intelligence, robust defense measures, and greater depth in security features.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could enhance robustness in certain features and provide more comprehensive security measures. Check Point WAF may improve its pricing structure and user interface simplicity and offer more flexible deployment options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Check Point WAF features a swift deployment model and strong customer support through a global infrastructure. OpenText also ensures an accessible deployment backed by attentive customer service but lacks the global resource availability of Check Point.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is budget-friendly and delivers satisfactory ROI, attracting budget-conscious organizations. Check Point WAF is more costly up front but offers significant long-term returns due to its advanced security capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed DevSecOps Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

DevSecOps

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 909,647 peers since 2012

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

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (5th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (8th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (5th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in DevSecOps

11th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 4.4%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.6%, down from 6.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)	4.4%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	6.6%
Other	89.0%

DevSecOps

Featured Reviews

Krishnakumar Mahadevan

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.

Read full review

ArnabPaul

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies effectively."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF has really reduced the headache of IT engineers and has helped me in security through machine learning."

"The price of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is not expensive, as it was the cheapest solution we found."

"Its main value and what we liked the most is its powerful AI."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies."

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF delivers clear efficiency gains over traditional WAFs in three main areas: operations, accuracy, and cost optimization."

"By using a cloud application security solution, our company can save costs by reducing the need for additional security hardware and software and improving operational efficiency."

"Having a cloud detection response helps to very quickly identify security threats in our environment."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pros

"My experience with technical support has been good."

"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."

"The solution is easy to use."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

"The most valuable feature is the performance."

"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"I would like this solution to be extended to cellular devices or tablets."

"It doesn't detect user activity like some of its competitors. It's not a vulnerability, but it's a legitimate activity that it doesn't detect. It only detects vulnerabilities or misconfigurations."

"Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) could improve by addressing the new day-to-day attacks and issues that arise in the environment and globally dealing with attacks."

"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation."

"If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."

"The User interface can be improved, especially for 1st time user."

"At present, we require a lot of customization and additional features to make it usable in our system."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) cons

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"My advice to others using Fortify WebInspect is not to use it, there are better solutions in the market."

"The solution is on the expensive side. It's something that clients comment on."

"This solution is very expensive."

"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."

"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."

"We have often encountered scanning errors."

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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"

"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."

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."

"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."

"It is extremely affordable and high value for cost."

"I find the pricing to be reasonable."

"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 tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) pricing and cost advice

"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."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"This solution is very expensive."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"The price is okay."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

909,647 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Outsourcing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

Construction Company

Financial Services Firm

12%

Government

12%

Manufacturing Company

Outsourcing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	53
Midsize Enterprise	23
Large Enterprise	34

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Data Loss Prevention vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 7% of the time

AWS WAF vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 6% of the time

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 6% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 6% of the time

Mimecast Insider Risk Management and Data Protection vs Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

Compared 6% of the time

More Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 32% of the time

Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

August 2026

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) report

Download Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

July 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec, Check Point CloudGuard Code Security

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

Check Point WAF offers a robust security framework with AI-driven threat detection and seamless integration, protecting applications and APIs in multi-cloud environments.

Effective in preemptively blocking threats through AI and machine learning, Check Point WAF reduces false positives and operational workload. Its integration capabilities and threat intelligence provide comprehensive protection against zero-day attacks, while centralized management facilitates cost-effective and insightful threat reporting.

What are the main features of Check Point WAF?

AI and Machine Learning: Preemptively blocks threats without signature reliance.
Centralized Management: Simplifies oversight and reduces costs.
Threat Intelligence: Enhances security posture against zero-day attacks.
Ease of Deployment: Quick setup with user-friendly interface.
Comprehensive Protection: Guards against SQL injection and DDoS attacks.

What benefits should be considered by users?

Reduced False Positives: Minimizes operational interruptions.
Cost-effectiveness: Reduces management overhead.
Insightful Reporting: Enables swift response to threats.
Seamless Integration: Enhances security processes with existing tools.

Check Point WAF is employed in industries securing web applications and APIs, especially in multi-cloud environments. It effectively protects backend services, prevents unauthorized access, and monitors traffic, making it suitable for businesses with diverse infrastructures. It ensures compliance with security standards and adapts to fluctuating traffic patterns.

Check Point Software Technologies

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto

Aaron's

Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Check Point Software Technologies, Checkmarx and others in DevSecOps. Updated: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

909,647 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best DevSecOps vendors.

We monitor all DevSecOps reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.