Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 30, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
8.0
Customer service for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is mixed, with both praise for effectiveness and criticism of response times.
No sentiment score available
SonarQube users rely on community forums and documentation for support, with official options being costly but enterprise packages offer good support.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
6.8
Check Point CloudGuard WAF needs cost efficiency, improved support, better integration, enhanced UI, and extended trial for effective evaluation.
Sentiment score
5.9
SonarQube Server requires security, integration, multilingual support improvements and enhancements in user experience, performance, documentation, and dynamic testing.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.5
Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers excellent scalability and seamless integration, though potential latency issues arise with larger user bases.
Sentiment score
7.5
SonarQube Server offers strong scalability, integrating well with tools, though larger operations may require resources and higher editions.
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
6.7
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is competitively priced with advanced features, but costs more than alternatives like FortiWeb and Azure WAF.
No sentiment score available
SonarQube Server provides free and paid versions, with enterprises opting for licensed features and competitive pricing concerns.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
9.0
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is praised for stability and reliability, despite minor issues like license downtime and configuration challenges.
Sentiment score
8.2
SonarQube Server is praised for its stable performance, reliable operation, and minimal issues, aside from rare plugin-related concerns.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.4
Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides scalable, high-performance security with automated threat detection, real-time monitoring, and seamless cloud integration.
Sentiment score
8.4
SonarQube Server supports custom rules, CI/CD integration, code analysis, and continuous quality checks for enhanced development processes.
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
34
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (14th)
SonarQube Server (formerly ...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (1st), Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is 26.7%, down from 27.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Ashish Upadhyay - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation capabilities also help streamline security processes and smooths down API integration processes and detects API availability
There is room for improvement in the pricing strategy. By reducing their cost and extending the trial period, Check Point can attract more partnerships and customers, keeping up with other vendors in the field. It has a trial period, but they can extend it so we can better evaluate how it's working in our environment and how well it is suited. It should be converted to activate some discounts on buying standard versions. This will attract more of us, and we'll get more time to check the application and how it works. Additionally, their effort to involve IT teams would mean continuous adaptation to meet business requirements. This can help with the price picture and increasing the trial period so we can better evaluate the cost-effectiveness. Also, Check Point need to continue developing new features and arrangements in line with changing business requirements. The analysis time while it analyzes itself is very time-consuming. They need to improve the latency and minimize the steps involved. Also, 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. Also, Check Point can bring some updates to the integration features with other security solutions, making it easier to integrate. For instance, it needs to integrate with solutions someone might have various firewall solutions from IBM and others, depending on which ones the business wants to integrate with.
Wang Dayong - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages
The product provides false reports sometimes. It also fails to understand the context of the code. It reports that a line of code has issues without considering its relation with the previous line. The product should improve the report quality. While it asks us to improve the code quality, it would be good if it also suggests how to improve the quality.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Security Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CloudGuard for Application Security?
The app control is very sensitive, and the threat detection and prevention is better than other Check Point solutions. There is a centralized management console for threat protection and self-inspe...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
Pricing is average—not too expensive, yet not cheap either. CloudGuard offers bundled packages, which may reduce costs compared to paying for individual features as opposed to other providers.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability. Although they provide 24/7 support, there are sometimes delays in delivering solutions. Advanced bot protection has recently been i...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
Sonar
 

Learn More

 

Interactive Demo

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.