We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard WAF and Checkmarx One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It seamlessly protects through machine learning, giving us visibility into potential attacks and where they come from."
"It is a highly scalable solution with a quick turnaround time for deployment and running of the software across any IT system."
"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."
"The first valuable feature is that it is not a complex process to get it up and running. It was not complex at all. We were in a close relationship with the team that developed the app, and it worked in a few hours. The second valuable feature is the information that comes out of it."
"It offers good functionality of the application that is currently running."
"They offer free trials, which is quite appreciative and grabs more attention from new users and businesses."
"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."
"The tool performs device health checkups and updates us. It helps us to be compliant with regulatory policies."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"We would like the solution to be more economical since it is not accessible to all clients."
"The documentation needs to be updated, more improved, and simplified... so that even a beginner can start with this application. It can make things more beginner-friendly."
"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."
"There should be automation of threat detection, risk mitigation, and report generation."
"You need to know exactly the system. You cannot have someone running the system if they don't have the knowledge to do so."
"I have faced issues with the tool's blocking aspects. It is hard to open or block web services due to the multitude of cloud centers. I have to do the process manually at times. We have a bug which is hard to solve."
"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."
"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"Meta data is always needed."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 30 reviews while Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is rated 9.0, while Checkmarx One is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard WAF writes "Automation capabilities also help streamline security processes and smooths down API integration processes and detects API availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". Check Point CloudGuard WAF is most compared with SonarQube, whereas Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity. See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Checkmarx One report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
