Sold by: Check Point Software Technologies
Deployed on AWS
Check Point WAF as a Service (WAFaaS) is an AI-based WAF solution delivering the highest protection against known and zero-day threats through advanced AI and IPS signatures. Check Point WAFaaS provides multiple layers of protection: rate limiting, AI engines, IPS signatures, zero-day file security, bot protection. Check Point WAFaaS delivers a non-agent WAF, deployable within minutes, and adds advanced DDoS mitigation. Traffic is seamlessly routed through Check Point servers, which automatically issue SSL certificates.
4.3
Overview
Check Point WAF as a Service (WAFaaS) is an automated solution that delivers superior benefits of a top-tier Web Application Firewall and API Protection, requiring minimal manual intervention. The AI engine continuously learns the behavior of your application, tracking changes throughout its lifecycle. This ensures a minimal false positive rate and reduces tedious rule tuning after each application change. Check Point WAFaaS delivers a non-agent WAF that can be deployed in less than 15 minutes. Traffic is effortlessly routed through Check Point servers, which automatically issue SSL certificates. Upon redirection, any HTTP requests are intercepted for inspection and forwarded to the application only after validating their security. Check Point WAFaaS is available in advanced and premium packages. Premium include API Discovery and Zero-day file security. The advanced package provides:
- AI-based engines for prevention of Zero-day Attacks and OWASP Top 10 known attacks.
- AI-based contextual analysis engine to ensure precise detection rate with minimal false positives.
- Snort 3.0 signature enforcement engine.
- Advanced DDoS mitigation to ensure your applications stay accessible to legitimate users by mitigating attacks that overwhelm your network, servers, or applications.
- Rate limiting based on identifiers such as IP address and XFF - limited to 5 rules.
- Intrusion Prevention (IPS), over 2,800 Web CVEs, based on award-winning NSS-Certified IPS.
- Include 3 months of full logs retention - based on the fair usage policy.
You are entitled to free usage of 7 days or 1M HTTP requests whatever comes first, after that you will be billed.
Highlights
- Zero-day prevention: Check Point WAFaaS has demonstrated prevention of zero-day exploits across a wide spectrum of security events, including log4shell, text4shell, and MOVEit, all in real-time.
- Deployed within minutes, usage-based pricing: Check Point WAFaaS delivers a non-agent Web application Firewall, deployable within minutes. Requires one-time DNS configuration. The consumption is based on the actual number of requests processed by your applications.
- Prevent DDoS and automated bot attacks: Check Point WAFaaS provides real-time detection and automatic mitigation protection against Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks and bot-driven assaults.
Details
Categories
Delivery method
Deployed on AWS
New
Introducing multi-product solutions
You can now purchase comprehensive solutions tailored to use cases and industries.
Features and programs
Buyer guide
Gain valuable insights from real users who purchased this product, powered by PeerSpot.
Financing for AWS Marketplace purchases
AWS Marketplace now accepts line of credit payments through the PNC Vendor Finance program. This program is available to select AWS customers in the US, excluding NV, NC, ND, TN, & VT.
Pricing
Pricing is based on actual usage, with charges varying according to how much you consume. Subscriptions have no end date and may be canceled any time.
Additional AWS infrastructure costs may apply. Use the AWS Pricing Calculator to estimate your infrastructure costs.
Dimension | Cost/unit |
|---|---|
First 10M HTTP requests | $1,500.00 |
10M-60M HTTP requests (price per 1M) | $38.00 |
60M-160M HTTP requests (price per 1M) | $22.00 |
160M HTTP requests and above (price per 1M) | $15.00 |
Dimensions summary
You pay based on the volume of HTTP requests the service processes each month. Pricing uses graduated usage tiers. The first 10M HTTP requests fall into a base tier. Beyond that, you are charged per 1M requests, with separate rates for the 10M-60M band, the 60M-160M band, and any volume at 160M and above. As your traffic grows, additional requests are billed at the rate for the band they fall into. This usage-based structure scales with your actual application traffic.
Top-of-mind questions for buyers
Each incoming HTTP request your protected web applications or APIs receive counts as one request. The service analyzes every request through its AI engines. All requests are metered, whether allowed or blocked. Your monthly total across all protected apps determines which usage bands apply.
No. Billing is graduated. Your first 10M requests use the base tier. Only requests within each band are charged at that band's per-1M rate. For example, requests between 10M and 60M use the 10M-60M rate, while volume at 160M and above uses the top-band rate.
This is usage-based billing. You pay for the HTTP requests the service processes each month, with no fixed upfront quantity. Charges scale with your actual application traffic. As monthly volume rises, requests fall into higher bands billed per 1M. Costs track your real usage.
www.checkpoint.com
Helpful?
Vendor refund policy
No Refunds.
Custom pricing options
Request a private offer to receive a custom quote.
Legal
Vendor terms and conditions
Upon subscribing to this product, you must acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions outlined in the vendor's End User License Agreement (EULA) .
Content disclaimer
Vendors are responsible for their product descriptions and other product content. AWS does not warrant that vendors' product descriptions or other product content are accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free.
Delivery details
Software as a Service (SaaS)
SaaS delivers cloud-based software applications directly to customers over the internet. You can access these applications through a subscription model. You will pay recurring monthly usage fees through your AWS bill, while AWS handles deployment and infrastructure management, ensuring scalability, reliability, and seamless integration with other AWS services.
Support
Vendor support
https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal 24x7 email support with emergency phone number. Premier support available for enterprise customers.
AWS infrastructure support
AWS Support is a one-on-one, fast-response support channel that is staffed 24x7x365 with experienced and technical support engineers. The service helps customers of all sizes and technical abilities to successfully utilize the products and features provided by Amazon Web Services.
Similar products
Check Point WAF as a Service (WAFaaS) is an AI-based web application, generative and agentic AI, and API security solution, delivering the highest protection against known and zero-day threats using advanced AI and IPS. WAFaaS provides multiple layers of protection: rate limiting, AI engines, IPS signatures, zero-day file security, bot protection, and comprehensive API discovery and schema validation. WAFaaS delivers a non-agent WAF, deployable within minutes, and adds advanced DDoS mitigation. Traffic is seamlessly routed through Check Point servers, which automatically issue SSL certificates.
Check Point WAF as a Service is an AI-driven, fully managed web application firewall that provides advanced security for applications and APIs. It delivers real-time protection against zero-day threats, OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, DDoS attacks, and more, ensuring high availability, AWS security compliance, and uninterrupted service.
Check Point WAFaaS integrates seamlessly with AWS services, including Amazon Route 53, AWS WAF, AWS Shield, AWS API Gateway, Amazon CloudFront, and AWS Lambda, enabling automated threat prevention with minimal operational overhead.
Advanced threat prevention security for AWS and hybrid cloud environments, with Threat Extraction and Threat Emulation, and a built-in security management server
Reduce risk and costs with fully managed Check Point firewall software infrastructure, through highly available, AI-powered threat prevention and efficient cloud native dynamic policies.
Customer reviews
KAUSHILAMBATKAR
Advanced protection has secured APIs and simplified centralized network defense
Reviewed on Sep 07, 2026
Review provided by PeerSpot
What is our primary use case?
I have been working with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for 14 years.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is particularly useful for protecting my network from external attacks, such as DDoS attacks and broken authentication.
Regarding which product of Check Point I would like feedback about, I chose Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) solution.
What is most valuable?
What I appreciate about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it has an auto-enabled CDN within it, which helps us because even if there are floodgates created by an attacker, the CDN gets enabled automatically, and the UI is well organized, so even if a graduate comes in and tries to explore it, they are able to do so.
Moreover, network segmentation can be done very easily using WAF.
The key benefits I have seen from using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it can be centrally managed, so if we have ten firewalls, they can be centrally managed through one center and one platform, which is one of the key features I appreciated.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs so that our security risk, which was ambient earlier, is now green, and the security posture assessment by third-party evaluators shows we are green.
What needs improvement?
Regarding the false positive rate, we need to configure it according to our environment because unless we configure it according to our environment, it's a tedious process, particularly with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and sometimes if it's not configured properly, there are more than 60% of false positives that we receive.
Apart from the configuration aspect, I would like to see improvements in false positives, and the second part is endpoint security because there is no agentless control. If endpoints can be managed using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), that would be very beneficial, rather than it being just a firewall.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities is one area wherein I believe Check Point lacks, as I did not find many AI features in Check Point, but compared to Palo Alto, they have better AI capabilities.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
When it comes to stability and reliability, I find Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) stable.
We do have crashes, downtimes, and performance issues, but we receive good support from Check Point, so it is taken care of by the Check Point vendor.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
When it comes to scalability, I would rate it as nine out of ten, as it's very easy to scale, and whenever we bring in some VLANs or different networks, we can easily integrate them within Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).
How are customer service and support?
I would rate the technical support of Check Point as eight out of ten.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Prior to adopting Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I previously used a different solution called SentinelOne.
How was the initial setup?
Before implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I was trying to solve network security challenges, particularly all the challenges that exist for network security.
What about the implementation team?
I utilize Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) alongside Check Point Firewall, which is the basic firewall.
What was our ROI?
Since implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), it has helped us to get more business, and along with that, we are able to prevent threats to our organization using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Apart from the pricing, other differences I found include that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is centralized, as ASA does not have centralized management, and although Palo Alto does, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is found to be more user-friendly.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
The main reasons I selected Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) over other solutions were that it is a smarter firewall than others, and it was more cost-effective compared to Palo Alto, as they provided a lengthy quotation, and ASA is a legendary solution, but no one uses ASA nowadays.
What other advice do I have?
For assessing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for preemptively blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies, we particularly use CrowdStrike for that function, as we detect using CrowdStrike, and there is not much on Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s side.
For ZTNA, I can maintain a ZTNA using certain MFAs or enabling certain network controls, so on the ZTNA side, it performs well.
Regarding integration, how Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and firewalls integrate with my existing systems, I find the integration with third parties straightforward as I have not encountered challenges, complexities, or needed to work on or enable anything there.
I do not find any challenges with the ongoing management of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), so maintenance is very smooth, and I do not face any issues with that.
I purchased Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) through a vendor, not directly through Check Point Technologies.
Given my experience with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and other technologies, I recommend Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). I would recommend it primarily for its scalability, which is very easy to scale, and the integration capability, as we can integrate it easily with systems like Splunk or any other SIEM devices. My overall review rating for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 8.5 out of 10.
Eslam Osama
AI-driven protection has secured our cloud APIs and reduced false positives for dynamic workloads
Reviewed on Aug 26, 2026
Review from a verified AWS customer
What is our primary use case?
My main use case for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is web application API protection in cloud-native, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments, where it provides automated AI-driven threat prevention, comprehensive API security, zero-day and OWASP Top 10 protection, as well as bot protection and DDoS mitigation.
As a scenario, I can describe a broken object level authorization attack where an enterprise is running a containerized microservice application deployed via Terraform or Docker. The front end communicates with the back-end service through a REST API, and user authentication is handled by a central identity and access management provider such as OAuth2. The attack vector involved an attacker logging in with valid, low-privilege user credentials, which led them to probe the application's back-end endpoint. After requesting their own authorized record, they deployed a script to iterate through other IDs to scrape sensitive data from other tenants. Since the API calls are perfectly formatted and authenticated, a legacy signature-based WAF would typically allow this traffic through. However, the mitigation flow includes automatic schema enforcement, behavioral baseline, IAM context awareness, and surgical blocking. By applying these techniques, we can shift from static rule maintenance to dynamic, context-aware analysis, which is where Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) applies.
What is most valuable?
The best feature Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) offers is API security.
The features that stand out to me within Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) include the contextual AI threat engine, which I find to be a very useful tool, as well as automated API discovery. Additionally, I appreciate the unified multi-cloud management that allows for the management of policies, logs, and analytics across hybrid and multi-cloud environments through a single control plane.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has positively impacted my organization by reducing rule maintenance, leading to less or near-zero false positives, and enabling frictionless DevSecOps alignment. Regarding Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) AI capabilities, it possesses local logging control, PII reduction, log suppression, tenant isolation, and deterministic threat scoring. The granular rule-based access list and auditability are also crucial, as they allow for enforcing strict rule-based access control and maintaining immutable audit logs for all admin actions and support access requests.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities have helped my organization by providing more precise detection and response. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs by automatically mapping undocumented API endpoints, ingesting OpenAPI specifications, and enforcing strict schema validation to prevent parameter tampering and logic abuse. This is achieved through automated API discovery and protection. In terms of AI, it evaluates requests against learned behavioral baselines rather than static RegEx signatures, effectively stopping zero-day exploits while drastically minimizing false positives.
What needs improvement?
There should be more tutorials and documentation about the usage of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) online so more users and tenants can use these security services daily, as it is not as well-documented as other tools, such as the F5 WAF.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) scalability is impressive as it prevents the bottleneck common in traditional centralized WAF appliances and ensures the security throughput grows proportionally alongside application workloads. I do not see any bottlenecks, as it scales through a stateless micro-agent architecture that decouples traffic handling from control plane management.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I purchased Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) through the AWS Marketplace.
How was the initial setup?
The deployment and ongoing management of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) were easy.
What was our ROI?
I have not seen a return on investment, as I still have the same number of employees and the same amount of effort and time in hours.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it is a bit expensive.
What other advice do I have?
Nothing would make Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) closer to a 10 for me since a 10 would mean preventing against all attacks, which is why it cannot receive that rating; nothing can prevent every attack.
I would advise others looking into using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to take an evaluation license and try it first to understand how it works, and then try it again to form a final opinion about whether they are going to purchase it. This way, they can see if it fits within their current setup. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Anonymous
Powerful Security, But Difficult to Budget
Reviewed on Aug 12, 2026
Review provided by G2
What do you like best about the product?
The WAF from Check Point works very well. In the dashboard, I can see an overview of all the requests it has blocked, with specific logs and mainly the origin behind them.
What do you dislike about the product?
I don't find it very user-friendly and it requires more knowledge of underlying systems than I had expected. The high purchase price is a downside for me. Calculating capacity and additional options makes it difficult for me to budget effectively.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point WAF to secure our domains, but it is sometimes not user-friendly and expensive. It offers good protection, shows blocked requests and their origin in a convenient dashboard.
Computer & Network Security
Powerful WAF, but complex setup and reporting need simplification
Reviewed on Aug 12, 2026
Review provided by G2
What do you like best about the product?
What I like most about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is how it combines strong security capabilities with a relatively straightforward management experience. The UI is clean and well organized, which makes it easier to monitor traffic, review security events, and manage policies without adding unnecessary complexity.
Its integration capabilities are another plus, especially when connecting the WAF to existing cloud environments and established security workflows. Performance has been reliable as well, providing solid protection without a noticeable impact on application responsiveness. From an ROI standpoint, centralized security management and the reduced effort needed for ongoing monitoring and policy administration make it a worthwhile investment for organizations that require consistent web application protection.
Onboarding and support have also been helpful, particularly when I’ve had configuration or troubleshooting questions. I also appreciate the intelligence built into the platform, which helps identify suspicious activity and potential threats more efficiently than relying entirely on manual analysis. Overall, it strikes a strong balance between security, usability, performance, and operational efficiency.
Its integration capabilities are another plus, especially when connecting the WAF to existing cloud environments and established security workflows. Performance has been reliable as well, providing solid protection without a noticeable impact on application responsiveness. From an ROI standpoint, centralized security management and the reduced effort needed for ongoing monitoring and policy administration make it a worthwhile investment for organizations that require consistent web application protection.
Onboarding and support have also been helpful, particularly when I’ve had configuration or troubleshooting questions. I also appreciate the intelligence built into the platform, which helps identify suspicious activity and potential threats more efficiently than relying entirely on manual analysis. Overall, it strikes a strong balance between security, usability, performance, and operational efficiency.
What do you dislike about the product?
One area that could be improved is the overall complexity of configuration and policy management. Although the interface is generally well organized, some advanced settings take time to understand, especially for new users or teams that aren’t already familiar with web application security concepts. Because of this learning curve, initial setup and troubleshooting can end up being more time-consuming than expected.
Pricing can also be a factor for smaller organizations, particularly when additional capabilities or higher levels of protection are needed. Reporting and analytics could be more intuitive as well; clearer insights and more streamlined dashboards would help users identify trends faster and prioritize security events more effectively. Overall, the product is powerful, but simplifying advanced workflows and making the platform feel more transparent and accessible would significantly improve the user experience.
Pricing can also be a factor for smaller organizations, particularly when additional capabilities or higher levels of protection are needed. Reporting and analytics could be more intuitive as well; clearer insights and more streamlined dashboards would help users identify trends faster and prioritize security events more effectively. Overall, the product is powerful, but simplifying advanced workflows and making the platform feel more transparent and accessible would significantly improve the user experience.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Check Point WAF helps our organization tackle the challenge of protecting web applications and APIs from evolving security threats, while still keeping security management manageable for our teams. It provides greater visibility into application traffic and helps us identify and block malicious activity before it can affect our applications, users, or business operations.
From my perspective, one of the biggest advantages is the reduction in manual effort needed to monitor and respond to web application security issues. Centralized visibility and policy management make it easier for our security and IT teams to work together, investigate incidents, and maintain consistent protection across our environments.
At the organizational level, it also helps lower security risk, improve operational efficiency, and support broader security and compliance requirements. Rather than relying on multiple disconnected tools and manual processes, we can take a more structured approach to protecting our applications. This enables our teams to spend more time on strategic security initiatives, while still maintaining a strong level of protection for critical business services.
From my perspective, one of the biggest advantages is the reduction in manual effort needed to monitor and respond to web application security issues. Centralized visibility and policy management make it easier for our security and IT teams to work together, investigate incidents, and maintain consistent protection across our environments.
At the organizational level, it also helps lower security risk, improve operational efficiency, and support broader security and compliance requirements. Rather than relying on multiple disconnected tools and manual processes, we can take a more structured approach to protecting our applications. This enables our teams to spend more time on strategic security initiatives, while still maintaining a strong level of protection for critical business services.
Vasilis K.
Strong Security, Centralized Visibility, and Seamless Check Point Ecosystem Integration
Reviewed on Aug 10, 2026
Review provided by G2
What do you like best about the product?
What I like best about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is its strong balance of security, visibility, and ease of management. It provides effective protection against common web application threats while giving security teams centralized visibility and control. I also like that it integrates well with the broader Check Point security ecosystem, which can simplify monitoring and policy management for organizations already using Check Point products.
What do you dislike about the product?
The main thing I dislike about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it can feel complex to configure and manage, especially for teams that are new to the platform. Fine-tuning security policies and rules can require some time and expertise, and the overall cost can also be a consideration for smaller organizations. The user interface and documentation could be more intuitive in some areas to make troubleshooting and day-to-day administration easier.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Check Point WAF helps us protect our web applications and APIs from threats such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and other malicious traffic. It reduces the risk of application-level attacks while providing visibility into traffic and security events. This benefits us by improving our overall security posture, reducing the amount of manual monitoring required, and giving the team greater confidence that our internet-facing applications are protected without significantly impacting legitimate users.