I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application and API protection. I can provide a scenario where I used Check Point CloudGuard WAF to defend against an SQL injection attack on a web app. It detects query patterns via machine learning and then blocks requests instantly without needing any rule writing.
Check Point WAF as a Service (Premium, PAYG, Free 7 Days or 1M Requests)
Check Point Software TechnologiesExternal reviews
92 reviews
from
and
External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Strong Multi-Cloud Protection, Needs Easier Tuning
What do you like best about the product?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect cloud-native apps and APIs from OWASP Top 10 threats, like injection and XSS, while also providing bot mitigation and granular traffic inspection. I like its seamless integration with the CI/CD pipeline, allowing security policies to be deployed as code without slowing down development. This automation ensures security enforcement with every development, eliminating manual policy updates and reducing human error, which lets developers ship faster while protecting new code immediately. I appreciate its integration with CI/CD tools like Jenkins and CircleCI, and security platforms like Wiz and AWS Network Firewall. We switched to Check Point CloudGuard WAF from a legacy web app firewall because it lacked API security and multi-cloud support, and CloudGuard WAF provides better automation and centralized policy management.
What do you dislike about the product?
The policy tuning can be complex, leading to occasional false positives. Also, dashboard sync delays sometimes occur across multi-cloud environments. The learning curve and tuning effort for non-trivial apps keep it from being a perfect fit for every team.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to secure cloud apps and APIs against automated attacks, zero-day exploits, and reduce manual rule tuning. It integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, automating security enforcement and allowing faster code deployment.
AI-Driven Protection with Complex Setup
What do you like best about the product?
I really appreciate the AI-driven protection of Check Point CloudGuard WAF. It helps in protecting web apps and APIs from SQL injections, XSS, and DoS attacks by analyzing incoming traffic and blocking malicious activity in real-time. This reduces the need for manual security management.
What do you dislike about the product?
The setup was a little bit complex, requiring me to understand specifications and documentation.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for protecting web apps and APIs from SQL injections, XSS, and DoS, analyzing and blocking malicious activity, and reducing the need for manual security management.
Robust AI-Driven Security with Room for UI Enhancement
What do you like best about the product?
I like Check Point CloudGuard WAF for its ability to combine intelligent automation with strong visibility, making it a reliable solution for securing cloud applications while reducing operational overhead. It balances advanced security capabilities with usability and scalability effectively, which is great for both security operations and compliance-focused teams. It also integrates well with broader security and cloud ecosystems, which enhances visibility, monitoring, and incident response. The AI-driven protection, excellent visibility, and scalability for cloud environments are strong points, making it a solution I recommend for strengthening application security.
What do you dislike about the product?
I think there are a few areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF could be improved. I would appreciate more guided onboarding and configuration support. Also, an enhanced UI/UX for policy management and log analysis would be beneficial. I'd like to see greater flexibility in custom rule creation and deeper integration with SIEM and GRC platforms. Expanded documentation and real-world use cases would also be helpful, along with better cost transparency and scalability options. While the setup was moderately easy, there is a learning curve during initial configuration, and the documentation and guidance could improve.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to secure cloud-hosted apps, handle web threats, reduce false positives, improve traffic visibility, simplify multi-cloud security, support compliance, and lower operational overhead.
Effortless Cloud Security with Automated Protection
What do you like best about the product?
I like how Check Point CloudGuard WAF delivers strong automated threat prevention with minimal tuning, making cloud app protection feel both powerful and effortless. I also really appreciate how seamlessly CloudGuard WAF integrates with cloud-native workflows, applying protections automatically as new services spin up so security never slows down development. It's great how CloudGuard automatically applies security policies to every new cloud resource as it's created, so nothing ever launches unprotected and you don't have to slow down development to keep things secure.
What do you dislike about the product?
CloudGuard WAF could improve by making advanced configuration and log analysis faster and less cumbersome. It would benefit from clearer, more intuitive advanced settings and a faster, more searchable log viewer that makes deep dive investigation less time-consuming.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect cloud applications by detecting, blocking, and mitigating web attacks. It solves the headache of constantly monitoring web defenses by automatically blocking threats like OWASP Top 10, bot attacks, and zero-day exploits, making protection feel both powerful and effortless.
AI-driven protection has reduced attack impact and now secures web apps and APIs in real time
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers various capabilities including AI-based threat prevention, API security, DDoS protection at multi-layer, L3 and L7 protection, bot protection, behavioral analysis, and fingerprinting.
AI-based threat prevention stands out for me because instead of relying on static signatures that have been added in the cloud, it uses behavioral baselines. For example, if I'm using an application with behavioral application capabilities, it provides me high security using AI-based threat prevention. Behavioral learning mode has been divided into various phases. The first phase is the learning mode where it automatically learns. Whenever I onboard any app, it observes the traffic for a short duration or builds a statistical model for that application, and no manual training is required. In phase two, enforcement mode, any new request is evaluated against known attack patterns via machine learning.
Real-time response is really helpful when onboarding any application with Check Point CloudGuard WAF. When we onboard any application, it creates a statistical model of that application, and according to that, it observes known attack patterns, then blocks them instantly, providing another layer of security.
Check Point CloudGuard WAF has really reduced the headache of IT engineers and has helped me in security through machine learning.
What needs improvement?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved in several ways. We have faced slowness issues in our network after onboarding it on any application. The cost can be higher than traditional WAF solutions, and its heavy reliance on AI also means we have less manual control. Maximum work is done via AI, so that can be reduced.
The cost can be decreased, and regarding manual controls, I just wanted to say that relying directly on AI is not good for our environment because AI is copying our data.
According to other traditional OEMs, we experience a few issues with pricing. The pricing is high compared to other vendors, and I have already mentioned the high reliance on AI, which can be a concern.
Customer support can be improved because we have to reach out to the distributors for support. That could be directly controlled by the OEM.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for more than a year.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is really stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Its scalability is strongly stable. It allows cloud-native elastic scaling and is delivered via SaaS and a deployment agent.
The performance of Check Point CloudGuard WAF has improved compared to other traditional OEMs, and it is easy to use due to AI and machine learning. Management is also straightforward, but it can be improved for new users by providing specific training.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I was not using any solution previously. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is my first solution.
What was our ROI?
It has saved me time.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Pricing is a little bit high compared to other OEMs, and the setup cost was handled by a partner.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I have not evaluated any other options.
What other advice do I have?
I want to strongly advise this product to other users. Not because of pricing—while the pricing is a little high, the level of security provided is much more critical. I would rate this product an 8.
AI-Powered Security with a Price Tag
What do you like best about the product?
I really appreciate Check Point CloudGuard WAF as it stands out as a modern, AI-driven web application and API protection platform that does far more than traditional WAFs. I like its prevention-first approach using contextual AI and machine-learning models to detect new and unknown threats before they are documented, which is especially appealing for organizations that prioritize true zero-day resilience. It addresses multiple modern security issues that traditional WAFs struggle with.
What do you dislike about the product?
the pricing is high, many companies might not benefit from this
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I find Check Point CloudGuard WAF prevents zero-day attacks before they're known, addressing multiple modern security challenges traditional WAFs struggle with.
Centralized Protection with Seamless Cloud Integration
What do you like best about the product?
I like most about Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its seamless integration with cloud environments and the ability to enforce consistent security policies across multiple platforms through a single console. It also provides strong centralized protection and cloud-native integration. The initial setup was relatively simple thanks to the cloud-native integration and automated policy template.
What do you dislike about the product?
One area that could be improved is the initial setup and policy tuning, which can feel complex and time-consuming, especially for teams without deep prior experience with Check Point's ecosystem.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect our cloud-native applications from web attacks, centralize security policy management, automate defense, and solve the challenge of securing distributed cloud applications with unified visibility, automated threat prevention, and simplified compliance management.
Centralized Security with a Learning Curve
What do you like best about the product?
I like the single pane of glass management that Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers, providing consistent policies across all cloud environments. I appreciate how it enforces granular, context-aware security policies across multi-cloud, protecting my cloud-native applications from web exploits and bots. I also find its centralized security management across multi-cloud environments valuable, as it eliminates the complexity of maintaining disparate WAF solutions and stops sophisticated attacks like SQL injection and zero-day exploits. Additionally, I use it with SIEM platforms like Splunk for centralized logging and threat correlation, and I integrate it with CI/CD pipelines such as Jenkins to automate security policy deployment. Overall, it delivers powerful security.
What do you dislike about the product?
The setup and policy tuning have a steep learning curve, and the reporting dashboard could be more intuitive.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect my applications from web exploits and bots, centralize security across multi-cloud environments, and reduce manual effort for consistent compliance.
Cloud protection has reduced manual effort and now improves web and API security operations
What is our primary use case?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF's primary use is protecting web applications and APIs from application layer attacks in the cloud. I also use it to protect public-facing apps.
What is most valuable?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers the best features through its dual ML engine with attack-based and context-based capabilities. The dual engine directly reduces the operational load and improves detection quality for my team on a day-to-day basis.
Additionally, it allows for less policy tuning. Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by reducing my manual effort. It reduces up to 2x my operational effects, leading to lower false positives.
What needs improvement?
While Check Point CloudGuard WAF is a strong solution, it could be improved in a few areas such as simplifying and customizing the user interface and reporting database. Improving API security depth is also necessary.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for the last one year.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is stable in my experience.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly scalable and designed for cloud-native environments.
How are customer service and support?
The customer support is really good. I would rate the customer support an eight on a scale of one to ten.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before Check Point CloudGuard WAF, we did not use any WAF solution.
What was our ROI?
I have seen a return on investment as it is a time-saver product.
What other advice do I have?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF delivers clear efficiency gains over traditional WAFs in three main areas: operations, accuracy, and cost optimization. I do utilize Check Point CloudGuard WAF alongside other Check Point products. We use Check Point firewalls, security gateway, and load balancer, and they work together with Check Point CloudGuard WAF in our environment. My advice for others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to first validate the use case and plan the deployment architecture. I would rate this product a nine on a scale of one to ten.
Cloud security has improved as we protect critical apps and APIs with adaptive threat prevention
What is our primary use case?
The major use case is providing application security and API security solutions to the organization. For example, our client was HYG, and they wanted to ensure their applications and API security gets fully secured, which is why I proposed Check Point CloudGuard WAF to their solution.
What is most valuable?
The biggest benefit from Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I saw is that it comes with one solution that completely outperforms its competitors. While there are other vendors such as Azure or AWS that provide their own WAF solution, that is comparatively not good enough. Check Point CloudGuard WAF prevents everything, their applications, their APIs, protecting them completely from DDoS attacks. It also has an AI feature that learns automatically from patterns, implying remediation to mitigate regular attacks on the network.
Breach reduction occurs when there is a compliance issue or vulnerability within the organization. Since Check Point CloudGuard WAF has the capability to learn itself, as it understands the patterns of risks and attacks, it auto-generates remediation plans by itself, thus effectively reducing breaches on this platform.
What needs improvement?
The negative side I see is that while most things about Check Point CloudGuard WAF are really good, there is some latency and performance issues, as it can be slow to log in, especially from different regions. The pricing is another concern, as it is on the higher side and more suitable for mid-level or large enterprises rather than small organizations.
The quality of the technical support team could be better; I rate them as okay, not excellent.
To improve support, response time needs attention, as it can be hard to connect with the team. First, one must speak to the level one team, then the case must be transferred to levels two or three, leading to delays due to multiple teams managing different issues. This process means the customer can face delays in getting the right assistance.
Latency and performance issues, friendlier pricing, and support are major concerns for improvement.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with the products for approximately eight to ten months.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
For stability, I would give it 8.5 points out of 10.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is easy to scale and does not present many challenges, making it very easy to scale without limitation.
How are customer service and support?
The quality of the technical support team could be better; I rate them as okay, not excellent.
How was the initial setup?
Deployment of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is easy, as it comes with different modes depending on the agent that needs to be installed. Overall, it is simple and not very complex.
What was our ROI?
I observe a good return on investment from the product, as investing in securing clients proves worthy. If a serious breach happens, the cost to fix it could be in the millions, so preventing it is always beneficial for your investment.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
There are significant differences, as specifically for Check Point CloudGuard WAF, it outperforms competitors such as Cloudflare regarding accuracy and remediation. While Cloudflare is less expensive, it is not completely reliable. In contrast, Check Point CloudGuard WAF, despite being somewhat expensive, is completely reliable.
What other advice do I have?
I was working with Check Point CloudGuard WAF as a service provider, providing support to our clients from the Check Point CloudGuard WAF point.
When I assess the efficiency improvements provided by Check Point CloudGuard WAF compared to traditional WAF, I find that in traditional WAFs, we had to purchase a physical device or license from companies such as F5 or Cloudflare, which were really good in the market. However, since it has moved to the cloud, it completely goes virtual, meaning you don't have to buy or manage your own physical devices, making implementation really easy and very efficient with just a one-time purchase of the license from Check Point CloudGuard WAF.
Integration capability with existing systems was easy, as all vendors these days, such as Check Point, Fortinet, and Cisco, provide everything inbuilt. If you use the same vendor's firewall or EDR, it is easier to integrate their tool rather than purchasing from different vendors, which can become complex and challenging for engineers. When it is from the same vendor, managing different solutions is having only one platform to log in to.
Check Point CloudGuard WAF absolutely helps reduce the false positive rate, which is really very good, as the false positive rate is very low. The approximate false positive rate is one percent.
In assessing the solution for preemptively blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies, I find Check Point CloudGuard WAF amazing because it works on two engines: supervised and unsupervised. For zero-day attacks, it resolves issues immediately without waiting for another 24 hours or seven days.
I would rate the pricing at seven points, indicating it is expensive. I would rate this review overall as an 8 out of 10.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Public Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
showing 1 - 10