Check Point Web Application and API Security

Name: Check Point Web Application and API Security
Brand: Check Point Software Technologies
Rating: 4.6 (296 reviews)

Leader

Customers rely on Lakera for real-time security that doesn’t slow down their GenAI applications.

Est 1993|Valuation $14.1B|Raised $1.8B

LinkedIn 11K|Website|Web traffic 2.0M|FTEs 6,825|HQ San Francisco, CA

MarketsCloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP)Web Application & API Protection (WAAP)Firewalls

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where CloudGuard WAF tends to align with buyer needs - Aims to reduce ongoing tuning compared with rule-heavy WAFs after the initial learning period. - API discovery and schema enforcement are documented features that address visibility into shadow or deprecated APIs. - Deployment flexibility through SaaS WAFaaS and self-managed enforcement points supports a range of architectures. Where competitors can be stronger - Cloudflare often has advantages for small-to-mid websites through integrated CDN + WAF and lower-friction onboarding for simple use cases. - F5 is a common choice for organizations that require integrated application delivery with security at scale. - Imperva and Akamai are often selected for large-scale edge security with mature bot and DDoS defenses and broad enterprise support models. Common market considerations - Machine-learning-based WAFs typically require initial training and exceptions. - Edge WAF deployments need correct origin lockdown and routing to prevent bypass.

	Check Point CloudGuard WAF	Cloudflare WAF	F5 Distributed Cloud WAAP
Starting Price	Usage-based on requests (marketplace listing with published usage-based fees)	Often starts low for small sites (commonly a published low-cost tier includes WAF for a zone; enterprise pricing is custom)	Typically enterprise-style bundles; public pricing is complex/partner-driven
Best For	Organizations seeking a managed, automated WAF with API discovery/schema controls and reduced long-term tuning effort	Organizations wanting a WAF tightly integrated with a large global edge/CDN and simpler entry pricing	Enterprises needing a comprehensive WAAP plus application delivery and advanced bot/DDOS features across environments
Key Strength	Machine-learning/behavioral approach plus API discovery/schema validation; multiple enforcement form factors	Large global edge footprint; straightforward onboarding for many web properties; broad ecosystem	Full platform approach (delivery + security), often chosen for complex enterprise needs
Key Weakness	Perception of premium cost; initial learning/tuning; some roadmap items noted as "coming soon"; limited public clarity on some enterprise controls	Community complaints about support quality in some cases; risk of origin bypass if origin is not locked down; certain features gated by tier	Pricing complexity and operational overhead compared with simpler SaaS WAF-only offerings

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where CloudGuard WAF tends to align with buyer needs

Aims to reduce ongoing tuning compared with rule-heavy WAFs after the initial learning period.
API discovery and schema enforcement are documented features that address visibility into shadow or deprecated APIs.
Deployment flexibility through SaaS WAFaaS and self-managed enforcement points supports a range of architectures.

Where competitors can be stronger

Cloudflare often has advantages for small-to-mid websites through integrated CDN + WAF and lower-friction onboarding for simple use cases.
F5 is a common choice for organizations that require integrated application delivery with security at scale.
Imperva and Akamai are often selected for large-scale edge security with mature bot and DDoS defenses and broad enterprise support models.

Common market considerations

Machine-learning-based WAFs typically require initial training and exceptions.
Edge WAF deployments need correct origin lockdown and routing to prevent bypass.

	Check Point CloudGuard WAF	Cloudflare WAF	F5 Distributed Cloud WAAP
Starting Price	Usage-based on requests (marketplace listing with published usage-based fees)	Often starts low for small sites (commonly a published low-cost tier includes WAF for a zone; enterprise pricing is custom)	Typically enterprise-style bundles; public pricing is complex/partner-driven
Best For	Organizations seeking a managed, automated WAF with API discovery/schema controls and reduced long-term tuning effort	Organizations wanting a WAF tightly integrated with a large global edge/CDN and simpler entry pricing	Enterprises needing a comprehensive WAAP plus application delivery and advanced bot/DDOS features across environments
Key Strength	Machine-learning/behavioral approach plus API discovery/schema validation; multiple enforcement form factors	Large global edge footprint; straightforward onboarding for many web properties; broad ecosystem	Full platform approach (delivery + security), often chosen for complex enterprise needs
Key Weakness	Perception of premium cost; initial learning/tuning; some roadmap items noted as "coming soon"; limited public clarity on some enterprise controls	Community complaints about support quality in some cases; risk of origin bypass if origin is not locked down; certain features gated by tier	Pricing complexity and operational overhead compared with simpler SaaS WAF-only offerings