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
MANOJCHOUDHARY
AI security has accelerated client migrations and now delivers faster, reliable responses
Reviewed on Sep 24, 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 agentic AI, data collaboration, and organization migrations, providing solutions to clients.
I can give a quick specific example of how I have used Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) in an organization migration by creating dashboards to give proper responses to our clients for our IT teams and resources.
What is most valuable?
The best features Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) offers in my experience are deployment, reliability, and scalability. Check Point has all the good features for an organization.
Regarding the stability and deployment features that stand out to me, they are excellent. The client feels relief with the organization, and Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) saves time, making it possible to do business effectively.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has positively impacted my organization in that it is a time saver. We are using other software that takes considerable time to resolve all the queries and problems, but Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) provides proper responses within 10 to 20 seconds, resolving queries quickly.
In terms of the accuracy and reliability of the output from Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s AI capabilities, it is excellent.
What needs improvement?
I believe Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) could be improved; however, I find everything is good and there is no need to change anything.
For how long have I used the solution?
We are using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) in our checkpoints lab for the past two 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)'s scalability is very good compared to other products and software.
How are customer service and support?
Customer support for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is very nice as they provide quick responses. I will give a rating of 10 for the customer support.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), we did not have any security or application protection challenges because Check Point is good compared to other products.
How was the initial setup?
The deployment and ongoing management of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) are easy and time-saving. There is no money to pay for deployment.
What was our ROI?
I have seen a return on investment with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). It is a money saver and time saver.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been good with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). All aspects are good.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Before choosing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), we did not evaluate other options.
What other advice do I have?
My advice to others looking into using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it is good software for organizations, and I will give positive advice to others looking for Check Point web software.
I have no additional thoughts about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) before we wrap up. It is very good software and I am currently using it. I will give this product an overall rating 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)
Sachin Verma
Advanced AI protection has reduced web attacks but pricing and setup still need improvement
Reviewed on Sep 23, 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 protecting web applications and API integration. I use Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) in my environment by protecting a public-facing e-commerce website, customer portal, and backend APIs, such as securing a customer portal.
How has it helped my organization?
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has positively impacted my organization by reducing security incidents. Attacks are made from countries including DDoS attacks, and there have been specific incidents such as SQL injection attempts in the security and automation compliance phases.
Regarding automation and compliance improvements, sensitive customer data such as credit cards and health data are part of the compliance requirements, especially since we have government-related projects that include government data.
What is most valuable?
The best feature of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) in my experience is the dual-layer contextual AI engine, and no streaming rules are required for this.
Regarding that feature, layer one uses supervised machine learning to instantly scan incoming traffic, and layer two uses unsupervised machine learning to study my specific environment and learn what normal user traffic looks like.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) includes preemptive zero-day protection, which relies on behavioral analysis rather than signature matching, and also includes built-in API security.
Regarding Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s AI capabilities, its governance and security are incorporated in the dual-layer security model, making it better than others. Generative AI is also a feature of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). Automated API governance, visibility, and regulatory compliance are integral to Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s AI capabilities, and the dual-layer security model works in two parts: the gatekeeper layer and the content layer.
Concerning Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s AI capabilities, its accuracy and reliability of output are notable as it is a dual-layer security AI feature. I believe it works on 80 to 90% accuracy, while the reliability also depends on the security, such as automation AI and the dual-layer security AI features.
What needs improvement?
I believe that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) can be improved, as it is currently in a midway position; it is not much better, but it is not bad. The initial setup is more complicated than other solutions, and Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) can work on the user interface to make it better for users, especially as the pricing is already high. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is known for being costly.
Additionally, I find that the pricing is high, and Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is known as costly.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for almost two years, and I am also working with different WAFs.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
My experience confirms that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is good, but the Check Point team can work more on this aspect.
How are customer service and support?
The customer support is good, but it can definitely be better.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I did not use a different solution before Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), as it depends on the organization, its requirements, and the budget.
How was the initial setup?
Deployment of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is not easy for any device; all devices are complicated. Management is good, and Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) can improve its user interface further.
What was our ROI?
I have seen a return on investment as I maintain a relationship with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), which saves time. However, I cannot say it saves money because Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s price is high.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing reveals that the pricing is high, and the licensing cost is also high.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Before choosing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I evaluated other options and specifically considered Radware.
What other advice do I have?
My advice to others looking into using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that if an organization has a good budget, they can surely go with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF); otherwise, if the budget is low, they can explore other options, although security-wise, it is a good WAF. I would rate this product a 7 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)
reviewer2890770
Web security has improved and protects critical apps while providing clear traffic insights
Reviewed on Sep 20, 2026
Review provided by PeerSpot
What is our primary use case?
My main use case is protecting internet-facing web applications and APIs from threats such as SQL injections, XSS, and malicious requests. For example, I use it in front of customer-facing applications to inspect incoming traffic and block suspicious requests before they reach the application servers.
I also use it for visibility and control over application traffic, not just blocking attacks. The logging and security policies help my team investigate suspicious requests and fine-tune protection rules when new applications or APIs are introduced.
What is most valuable?
The features I rely on the most are web application protection policies, real-time threat detection, and traffic visibility through logging and monitoring. The ability to customize rules for specific applications and APIs is useful because it helps reduce false positives while keeping protection active.
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my overall visibility and reduced the amount of suspicious traffic reaching our applications. It has also made security operations more manageable because I can monitor events, fine-tune policies, and respond to threats without making frequent changes to the application itself.
What needs improvement?
One area for improvement would be making the policy configuration and troubleshooting experience simpler, especially for complex applications and APIs. More guided guidance around rule tuning and clearer explanations for why a request was blocked would also help reduce investigation time.
The overall interface is useful, but some advanced settings could be easier to navigate and understand for new administrators. I would also appreciate more practical documentation and troubleshooting examples, especially for application-specific policies and API protection.
Another improvement would be more detailed real-time diagnostics when a security rule triggers so it is easier to understand the reason behind a block. Additionally, smoother integration with monitoring and SIEM tools would make incident investigation and day-to-day operations more efficient.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for a little over a year.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has been stable for day-to-day production use in my experience. I have not seen major reliability issues, and it has handled normal traffic volumes consistently while providing the expected protection and monitoring.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has scaled well as I have added more applications and APIs for my needs. I have been able to extend protection without major changes to the overall setup, although very high-traffic applications still require some more planning around capacity and policies.
How are customer service and support?
Customer support has been good for issues around configuration or troubleshooting. The support team has generally been responsive and helpful, although some complex cases can take additional time to resolve when deeper investigation is needed.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I used a more basic web application security solution. I switched mainly because I needed better visibility, more flexible application and API-specific policies, and stronger centralized threat detection and monitoring.
How was the initial setup?
The initial deployment was fairly straightforward once the application, traffic flow, and security policies were defined. Ongoing management is manageable, although tuning rules for new applications and investigating certain blocked requests can require additional time from the security team.
What was our ROI?
I have seen ROI mainly through reduced manual security investigation and faster response to suspicious traffic, rather than direct headcount savings. The centralized visibility and automation blocking have saved my team time in day-to-day monitoring and incident handling, although I do not have a formal dollar figure.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The pricing and licensing were reasonable for my use case, but the overall cost depends on application traffic and the level of protection required. Setup costs were manageable, although I would recommend clearly understanding the licensing model and expected traffic volumes before budgeting.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I evaluated a few other enterprise WAF options, mainly AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure WAF. I compared them on threat detection, application and API policy customization, visibility, ease of management, and how they would fit into my existing cloud environment.
What other advice do I have?
I would recommend clearly defining your application and API security requirements before implementation and spending some time tuning the policies for your specific traffic. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a good fit if you need strong protection with centralized visibility, but make sure the team is comfortable with the configuration and ongoing rule tuning.
My experience with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has been positive overall. The combination of protection, visibility, and application-specific policy control has been useful for my environment. The main areas I would see improved are a simpler configuration, troubleshooting, and more detailed documentation. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10.
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)