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 is a very scalable and stable solution."
"We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results."
"The tool helps us to block IPs and applications."
"Its main value and what we liked the most is its powerful AI."
"The solution offers sophisticated security techniques with unique characteristics that can be particularly valuable for the financial sector, which is where we develop apps."
"It is a highly scalable solution with a quick turnaround time for deployment and running of the software across any IT system."
"It seamlessly protects through machine learning, giving us visibility into potential attacks and where they come from."
"After integrating AppSec with other applications, team members can easily work without fear of confidential information exposure."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"CloudGuard could improve in areas such as ease of integration with Fortinet and reducing costs associated with deployment in cloud environments like Azure."
"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The documentation of each of the tools that they offer needs to be better."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"Meta data is always needed."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"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."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is ranked 12th in Application Security Tools with 28 reviews while Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is rated 8.8, 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.
