We performed a comparison between Check Point SandBlast Network and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It seems like it works all the time. We have never had an issue. We have never had something go undetected, anything major. All in all, it works pretty well."
"Check Point has enabled us to detect a lot of threats and prevented a lot of threats from entering our environments. It has kept us safe."
"Very few false positives are detected, which gives the confidence to raise flags when needed, ensuring the IT department is aware of threats and acting fast."
"The most efficient and protective characteristics of Check Point's SandBlast solution are that we can see a lot of this protection at the network and mail levels."
"Threat Emulation gives networks the necessary protection against unknown threats in files that are attached to emails. The Threat Emulation engine picks up malware at the exploit phase before it enters the network. It quickly quarantines and runs the files in a virtual sandbox, which imitates a standard operating system, to discover malicious behavior before hackers can apply evasion techniques to bypass the sandbox."
"It looks out for new cyber threats and generates predictions based on behaviors that are already detected on a daily basis."
"Check Point SandBlast Network Solution provides signature-based as well as zero-day threat protection. Also sandboxing can be performed on an on-premise device, cloud as well as the combination of both. Threat emulation is done on multiple OS & verdict is provided."
"It has caught some harmful attachments and downloads."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"Scalable ATP solution that's quick to set up. It demonstrates good performance and stability."
"The solution has plenty of features."
"Installing this product as a datacenter firewall for segregation and segmentation, and also configuring policies between zones has improved my organization."
"You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs."
"The analysis is very fast."
"Detailed reporting on analysis of content. The inspections are easily applied to security policy profiles and profile groups, and may be assigned on a per-rule basis."
"The cloud-based services are a nice feature."
"Using it in the beginning was difficult because I had never used anything similar. In terms of navigating the UI, it was all not too bad, but there is definitely a learning curve."
"Many Important controls are only available in CLI & very very complicated. All tecli command features should available on GUI so that it will become easy for normal users to monitor & control queue."
"The technical support could use some work, but it's okay. It's a little bit of a tedious process to get through."
"We would like to see this solution reach mobile devices more efficiently, through apps or more specific products."
"At the support level, they could improve the attention times and have the resolution of cases happen a little faster."
"Today, we have it as part of a solution or a package. However, we'd like there to be a way where we can have the solution's features available to us in a cheaper way in the future."
"There should be some improvement in the solution's stability and scalability."
"We have noticed a slight performance hit when the Threat Emulation and Extraction features were enabled, but the protection trade-off is worth it for us."
"The cost of the solution is excessively high."
"The configuration should be made a little bit easier. I understand why it is as it is, but there should be a way to make it easier from the user side."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
"The technical support response needs improvement."
"The support is good but they could be faster."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"When you contact support, there is no guarantee that they will be available to help you tackle the issue that you are facing."
"High availability features are lacking."
More Check Point SandBlast Network Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point SandBlast Network is ranked 8th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 33 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Check Point SandBlast Network is rated 8.4, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point SandBlast Network writes "High detection with few false positives and able to handle large volumes of data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Check Point SandBlast Network is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Trellix Network Detection and Response and Symantec Advanced Threat Protection, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and Zscaler Internet Access. See our Check Point SandBlast Network vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.