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."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."
"The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its rich logging capabilities."
"The tool performs device health checkups and updates us. It helps us to be compliant with regulatory policies."
"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."
"The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments."
"It offers high performance and improved productivity for users."
"It is a very scalable and stable solution."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"It was costlier than other solutions."
"There are occasions when it interfaces with other systems, leading to a loss of visibility."
"Cost reduction and trial period extension should be considered with some lucrative discount offerings in buying standard versions."
"We would like to have a solution of this type for the administration of applications from mobile devices."
"CloudGuard could improve in areas such as ease of integration with Fortinet and reducing costs associated with deployment in cloud environments like Azure."
"They need improved latency in the main window."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"CloudGuard for Application Security, like the other Check Point applications, has been presenting major latency problems when entering their administrative portal."
"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."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
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.
