Check Point NGFW Reviews

Several enterprises, from financial institutions to hospitals, use this product mainly as edge solution. In most cases, the setup was based on a redundant configuration. Other cases which have been rolled out are based on smaller devices in office locations and larger devices in the central datacenter of the customer. As an MSSP we trust the reliability of the solutions, since we cannot risk having our reputation being harmed. Our team is perfectly able to manage the devices on a day by day basis using the central management solution.

The tension of being well protected from the outside world has decreased due to the sturdiness and reliability of the solution. 

Results are predictable and managing everything is easy with the right tooling. The management solutions are easy to use and make it possible for our administrators to manage numerous amounts of devices in one console. 

Software updates/upgrades contain valuable additions and it is clear that Check Point has the right focus on the requirements of what should be added as functionality.

Trustworthiness and stability are the key aspects when looking at these products. 

The up to date-ness of the threat intelligence and the underlying network of devices adding value to it is good. 

With many of their own investigators adding their findings to the threat database, Check Point has become a leader in having their product in the higher ranks of the spectrum of efficiency. 

The different hardware models focus on a wide spectrum of the market, so any company can choose a model that makes sense for them from the range.

The world is changing rapidly, and even though Check Point is delivering security solutions on many levels such as endpoints, cloud, and on-premise. 

A more centric solution would be preferable. They should take all existing products and make them a part of a suite that is easily manageable from one platform. This would leverage the use of the different products since no administrator wants many interfaces to manage the complete environment. 

Pricing needs to be lowered from start, this would be more effective than lowering it during negotiations.

We've used the solution for more than 10 years products and have been delivering the solution to our customers.

The product is very stable.

The solution is less scalable when using hardware-based solutions. Especially the smaller models have limited possibilities to expand on port / performance level. Both issues can be resolved using the Maestro solution, but that is limited to specific models.

Technical support is very good and easily accessible.

Positive

We previously used Cisco and Fortinet. Check Point is a long-lasting vendor that we use, based on trust.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, especially when working with preset best practice profiles.

We handled it on our own. 

In the end, the ROI is good once a company knows the protection level on offer.

Pricing and licensing are not the best within the market. That said when you get to know the products they offer you will be happy to pay a bit more.

We also looked at Palo Alto previously.

We use the solution for a perimeter firewall, an internal segmentation firewall, and a routing device in our organization.

Check Point NGFW is easy to use, flexible and provides good performance. The security of the product is excellent, we do not have to do a lot of patching or upgrades because of vulnerabilities.

The solution could improve by keeping more up-to-date with technology. For example, if Amazon releases something in the security field, Check Point should have integration or adoption of this feature a bit faster than it is today. Sometimes we can hear a lot of the marketing information about an attractive feature, which we would like to have, but the feature will be released in two years. This timeframe should decrease.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for approximately nine years.

The solution is stable.

This solution provides service for 50,000 employees in my organization.

We have premium support which is different from regular support. We have had good experiences with the support.

We have used BitScaler previously and use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

The installation is easy. It can be installed through an image very quickly.

The solution has saved us a lot of costs from an operational perspective.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution. However, I would advise everyone to carefully evaluate their needs against this vendor and compare them with the competition. There is a lot of strong competition between Palo Alto and Fortinet. One could have an advantage over the other for a customer's specific use case.

I rate Check Point an eight out of ten.

Check Point is very strong as compared to the other vendors in the market.

The solution offers a very good centralized management console. 

It works well even for small deployments. 

The perimeter security is excellent. 

It works well even for cloud environments and has been very useful during COVID when people weren't necessarily in the office. 

The creation of policies is simple. It's easy to configure them when we need to.

We have found the troubleshooting process to be very easy and helpful.

The GUI is simple and straightforward. 

The sandbox environment on offer has been great. 

The support has been super-helpful. They've always been great, even at a pre-sales level.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

From a stability standpoint, sometimes when upgrading to a new version, there are some stability issues. The device occasionally may stop responding. 

It would be beneficial if they offered better load balancing. 

They could make the licensing a bit easier to deal with, especially for enterprise-level options. 

We primarily use the solution for security, as a next-generation firewall that we use in our environments. It is very good at detection and prevention. However, we are still exploring use cases.

While the solution is mostly stable, we do find that we have stability issues moving to different versions. You run the risk of the device not responding in some cases. 

The scalability is possible, however, it's based on requirements. When we get a new solution, we plan out for the next four or five years. It can scale so long as you design it properly at the outset. 

Technical support is helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we can expect. They are very good.

I've also worked with Palo Alto and Cisco. 

The initial setup is extremely straightforward. You don't even have to be overly technical to manage it. They make it very easy. It's not overly complex or difficult.

The licensing is okay. Clients can go for a one, three, or five-year license. 

Sometimes it's complicated to put new licensing on existing devices. If we have issues, we can raise questions with the sales management team and they are always very helpful. Larger, enterprise-level devices, in particular, can be a bit complex to deal with. 

We are integrated partners and we provide services to the customers.

I didn't get any chance to work on version 80.40, however, a lot of the customers are on versions 80.10, 80.20, and 80.40.

I would encourage users and companies to use Check Point. It's quite a good solution. I find it to be a better solution than, for example, Palo Alto.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

We support various clients in the government sector in Mexico. We provide different solutions in terms of network security, data security, and perimeter security. The NGFM Firewall is available locally and different offices and/or institutions of the government sector pass through a more secure and controlled infrastructure.

This type of infrastructure has different zones or areas that are managed and keeping them centralized has helped us to maintain and control them. In addition, we are generating fast and safe solutions for our users on each site.

Check Point has provided us with an easier way to control all of the access traffic for more than 50 segments that we have within the organization. In addition, we have been able to maintain stricter control of the users and/or equipment that are had in all the institutions that make up the government sector of the entity.

Check Point technology has allowed us to keep the organization and distribution of the network in order within the institution. In addition, the VPN service we have has worked correctly for users who want to work remotely from their homes, which was of great help during the pandemic.

Within the organization, the inspection of packages has given us great help in detecting traffic that may be a threat to the institution.

The configuration of policies has allowed us to maintain control of access and users for each institution that is incorporated into our headquarters. It is well organized.

Some other of the services that have worked well for us are antivirus, anti-bot, and URL filtering. Together, these have allowed us to maintain control and organization amongst the users.

Another one of the pluses that have helped us a lot has been the IPsec VPN, especially in these times of pandemic.

Using the tool is somewhat complex when teaching new staff, although after practice it is quite easy to get used to this technology.

One of the improvements that could be included is to have a help menu to obtain advice or help for the different options that are presented in the application.

The equipment is complex, so you need guidance from specialized people or those who constantly work with Check Point. Better forums and information manuals could be provided so that users from different institutions can have more access to the information.

The company has been using the Check Point NGFW for more than four years.

Compared to other networking equipment I have used, I would say that Check Point's NGFW is just as stable. We rarely have problems, and they can all be properly fixed without affecting productive or critical network elements.

There are currently more than 5,000 users within government facilities in Mexico. This team has provided us with the necessary resources to provide services to users in record time.

With the teams that we currently have, we have not considered increasing the number of technicians. If the need should arise then Check Point is still a very good option.

Technical support has been available when we have problems, and they are always there to help us get back up and running as quickly as possible. In addition, the equipment is kept up-to-date with the latest versions, or alternatively, those recommended by the provider.

This solution was deployed before I entered this governmental organization. What I have heard is that prior to this, the security and segmentation control was not ideal and they wanted to improve it. With the implementation of Check Point, great improvements have been provided to the infrastructure, maintaining order within the organization.

When I entered the company, the equipment was already installed. With the passage of time, some configurations have been improved and some extra services have also been achieved for mobile users.

It was implemented through a provider that has been guiding us towards the correct use of the equipment and the best practices to keep it updated. The service has been excellent, both in common day-to-day ticketing situations, including the most serious incidents.

It has been well worth the investment, as the Check Point technology is there to help when we need it.

One of the main reasons that Check Point is used is that it helps us to administer security at a reasonable price. This is naturally in addition to meeting the expectations of the institution.

An annual technical support fee is paid to maintain the equipment with the most updated licenses and versions and thus avoid vulnerabilities

Check Point is the option that has always been considered for its good firewall organization, which allows us to have excellent security.

My advice is to always have a supplier with whom you can resolve doubts or more specific technical questions. Since the equipment requires many very technical parameters, it is helpful to have a person who understands and uses this technology correctly.

The purpose of using the firewall is to protect the users from the external network, internet. Apart from that, we have set up IPsec tunnels between two different sites, and for internal usage, between two different zones, we use these firewalls as well.

Our environment consists of a 3-tier architecture, which is recommended by Check Point. We use the central management system to manage our 3-tier architecture, and we use the Smart Console as well.

This solution has improved the way our organization functions in multiple ways. For example, during the pandemic situation, things completely shifted. People who are working from the office are now working from home, and it is our responsibility, as network security engineers, to monitor the home users. We do not want them to access any blacklisted sites and we want to make sure that they are protected from threats and risks from the internet.

With the Office Mode VPN, it would not be possible to manage work from home because the security would not be in place. We have more granular security options with this firewall.

There are many useful features including the Office VPN, which provides us with a seamless connection for users who are working remotely. This is helpful for our employees that are working from home, as they get the same office environment as if they were on-premises. It is also helpful for us as an organization because we have good control and visibility over their data, including network traffic packets.

There are two major areas that need to be improved.

The study material for Check Point needs to be improved, as well as the cost for certification. One of my friends recently completed the certification and it was costlier than other firewall security certificates.

The reports are generally good but there is not much control. We would like to have more filters. Essentially, we want more granular reporting.

I have been using Check Point NGFW since 2018.

There are no issues with stability that we have found. It is a good brand, and it is one of the oldest and finest firewalls on the market right now.

Scalability is not a problem. It has both UI and CLI-based options to configure it, and it is not difficult to extend or scale. We have between four and six deployments and we plan to continue using it in the future. As we are growing, we will continue to expand its usage.

We have about 12 people working directly with Check Point NGFW. There are approximately 4,000 users who are indirectly using it, as their traffic passes through the firewall. It is used by the entire organization.

We have support available from the Check Point TAC team. Our experience with them has been pretty good. We haven't had any issues or problems communicating with them or getting a solution from them.

Prior to Check Point, we were using Cisco ASA.

The problem with Cisco ASA is that it is a purely CLl-based firewall. Check Point is not only UI and CLI-based, but it is also a next-generation firewall. It has many different and more advanced features, compared to Cisco ASA.

For example, in Cisco ASA, we can use only two gateways in active-active mode, but with this product, we can use five gateways at a time. Another difference is that the Cisco ASA policy configuration options are not as granular as Check Point.

The initial setup process was very straightforward.

Our deployment took between seven and eight months, which included replacing our Cisco ASA firewall. It began with the planning, then implementation, followed by validation, and then we replaced the existing firewall. It would have been a little complex for us, but we did it all in a very straightforward manner.

We have a very good in-house engineering team that does the setup and configuration. We did not require any third-party assistance because we have had full training on it.

Our deployment included seven or eight people who were working in different shifts. Similarly, we have three to four network security engineers working in shifts who maintain it. This includes things like dealing with tickets for updating policies.

We are happy with the return that we are getting from this firewall.

Rather than money, this product is saving the security of our organization. This is the first thing that we were looking for, before deploying this firewall in our organization. We know that ASA is cheaper than Check Point, but our concentration was making the environment more secure.

Cost-wise, it is more expensive than Cisco ASA, but the returns include better security and more granular options. We are happy with that. We were not looking to save money but rather, providing a safer environment for our users.

The price of this product is not too costly and you do not need to pay for all of the features. It is more expensive than Cisco ASA, yet cheaper than a similar product by Palo Alto. The cost varies, depending on the service. For example, we have opted for Geo Protection, which is something that costs extra, but we wanted that feature.

We did not evaluate other options. We only compared the differences between our existing Cisco ASA implementation and Check Point.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that the TAC team is very knowledgeable and supportive. If I want to understand something or if I have doubts, then usually clear it up and make sure that I understand the logic. I have learned a lot from them.

This is a product that is rich in features and my advice for anybody who is deploying it for the first time is to learn about them in advance. It is a little bit different than a CLI-based firewall and I recommend learning about all of the features before deploying it.

At this point, we are happy with the results that we are getting from Check Point, and are not looking to replace it. It works as we were expecting before it was deployed.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use firewalls to protect our private environment from the public environment. My IT group is in charge of protecting the environment and maintaining safe usage of the internet. This product gives us a better, safer solution for the users within our company. 

Using this solution saves us time because nowadays, there are many malicious sites, as well as other threats and viruses on the internet. As it is now, we are not required to do anything because we have the antivirus and regular updates from Check Point. That is very helpful for us because when new viruses emerge, we just install the new signature and it works to protect us.

What used to take me seven days to do, now takes me only five. However, this is not just a time benefit because it better protects our environment as well. I estimate a 20% to 30% reduction in the number of attacks, compared to before.

I like the antivirus, attack prevention, three-layer architecture, and data center management features.

The antivirus updates are quite frequent, which is something that I like.

Central management is a key feature. We have between five and ten firewalls on-premises, and if we want to configure or push the same configuration to all of the firewalls, then the centralized management system is very helpful. It means that we only have to push the configuration once and it gets published on all of the firewalls.

The level and availability of training should be improved. I have seen people that are not well trained on the Check Point firewall and the reason is simply that the quality of available training is poor compared to that of other firewalls on the market.

The command-line interface (CLI) should be more user-friendly.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for approximately four years, since 2017.

I work on the Check Point firewall five days a week and the stability is very good. In general, the updates to the software and antivirus are very stable. We have not faced any issues.

It is very easy to scale and extend usage. We started with five firewalls and now there are approximately ten. There is not much effort required to scale and it is not very complex.

Directly or indirectly, there are between 2,000 and 3,000 people using it. Whenever their traffic is required to be sent to the internet from the office environment, the traffic passes through the firewall.

We are very happy with our experience with technical support. They are very knowledgeable and the process for resolving tickets or problems is fast. We have had incidents dealt with quickly by their team. 

Prior to Check Point, we were using Cisco ASA and we are still using it today. The reason for implementing Check Point is that we wanted more advanced features. What we found was that after 2017, we needed better protection for our environment, and that is something that comes with advanced firewalls such as Check Point and Palo Alto.

I'm very happy with the Check Point firewall because it includes many features that are missing from Cisco ASA. Also, it offers a better and easier experience.

One of the significant differences is that Cisco ASA does not have a central management system. If we want to configure 10 firewalls with the same configuration, it is not possible to push them all at once. Instead, you have to configure them one by one. Apart from that, the antivirus and threat management need additional hardware because the functionality is not present in Cisco ASA. 

One of the positive points about Cisco ASA is that the training is very good, and it is available on the internet. This makes it easy to use for somebody who is new to the product. This is unlike the case with Check Point, where quality training is not available.

We found the initial setup to be straightforward, as we have many experienced people in our team and they have worked with Check Point firewalls. 

We used the central management functionality a lot, and we initially configured five or six firewalls. It took between six and seven months for the complete deployment.

Our implementation strategy included the three-layer architecture, the centralized management system, the console, and the web UI. We followed the process that was recommended by Check Point.

Our in-house team was in charge of the deployment. We have a team of seven people that work in shifts, and we did all of the work, with some support from Check Point.

Six or seven people in different shifts are required for maintenance. At any given time, we generally work with two or three people during the same shift. I think that two people working at the same time are sufficient.

We have seen ROI and when you consider the features like central management, antivirus, and threat management, it is a good investment.

We did have cost savings, moving to Check Point from Cisco ASA. We required additional hardware devices, such as an IPS solution, antivirus, and threat management. In addition, we needed too many resources because we had so many individual ASA firewalls. There was no central management system, so more staff were required.

Ultimately, with Check Point, we needed fewer people and we also saved on the cost of hardware.

The price of this solution is average; not too high and not too low. It is more expensive than Cisco ASA but cheaper than Palo Alto.

After the first package of licenses, we have not needed to purchase additional ones. When our license expires then we will purchase another one. 

We also evaluated a solution by Palo Alto and we chose Check Point because it was more cost-friendly.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that it is good to see a company like Check Point is continuously working on the quality of their product, and we should learn from that. It is good to improve over time because it is very easy to get into the market, but it is not too easy to sustain. 

My advice for anybody who is implementing this firewall is to ensure that they are trained completely because it is not easy to use. Moreover, there is not much training available online, so you want to have trained with the device. This is a product with many features, which are pros, but these same features can become cons if you are not using it with complete knowledge.

In summary, this is a good product and they have been improving continuously, but there are still some areas to improve.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is being used as a security product in the environment. It is securing the IT infrastructure and delivering the services as expected. In the current world scenario, IT is becoming the backbone for every organization, and most business is highly dependant on IT so securing the IT infrastructure is becoming challenging. Check Point NGFW meets the expectations of our organization to secure the IT infrastructure as per organizational need. Check Point NGFW also gives many security features in single box which reduce your management complexities.

Our organization's primary need is to make information available and secure from an insider as well as outsider threats. Check Point NGFW can give you lots of security features on a single device that can be used as per the organization's need, you not need to procure separate security devices to strengthen the security. The organization also provides services like service providers so it becomes more critical to secure the IT environment and we believe Check Point NGFW family is meeting the requirement as per the expectation.

Advanced logging capabilities: Check Point generates extensive logs which may be very useful to figure out the issues. Its logs also contain too much information which can be used to modify the policy as per user need and organizational security environment. The same can be used to figure out probable attack surface or necessary steps for mitigation. 

Anti-spoofing security feature: Check Point has inbuilt by default enabled feature of anti-spoofing which reduces the attack surface from the spoofed IP addresses. 

IPS: Check Point IPS is one of the best products in the market.  

Management: Check Point should move away from its current architecture wherein it mandatorily requires a management server to manage the gateways. They should develop A feature in the gateway itself so that no management server is needed for policy and gateway management. They should leave it to the user whether they want to procure a dedicated management server or run the show with the gateway itself. It will also reduce the operation cost.

They should also optimize the packet mode feature like Cisco’s firewall packet tracer wherein it tells administrators which policy or rule is processing the intended traffic.

More than two years.

Check Point maestro is highly scalable, their other chassis base solutions are also scalable 

If you choose Check Point maestro platform they you need not to worry about the scalability.

They are very cooperative and supportive in nature. 

We were using an ACL based firewall which was traditional and not meets the current security expectation. So to meet the advance security requirement product like Check Point is needed.

It was straightforward.

Check Point authorised partner had been involved in the migration to avoid any operation issue 

Hard to calculate.

They should first understand their organization's needs and accordingly choose the product. In case if someone is not sure especially about sizing then they should use the Check Point maestro platform as it gives you the flexibility to augment the capacity on the fly without disrupting the existing running operation.

We have not evaluated any other option before Check Point. 

Check Point gives you flexibility and eases the management with meeting organisation’s security need. But before choosing proper sizing has to be done.

This is a complex high availability solution growing by over 100% per year. The complexity of the business environment made the ability to increase capacity without having to remove previous hardware much easier.

We have a large online presence with users needing realtor access to our environment. 

The improvements to our business are easy to explain. It is faster, easy to use, and there are multiple capabilities all in one box. The best examples are the endpoint and anti-virus options.

The ability to add more firewalls and increase the capabilities, rather than remove the hardware, is an exceptional step forward. No competitor was able to compete with this. Not having to continually replace hardware year after year was a massive driver in the decision-making process. The throughput going up by 100% with each added device is exceptional.

There are many features we have found good.

The best feature is the ability to increase the capacity of the solution by exactly what you add, not losing anything for High Availability. This feature alone will save us as we increase the number of devices in the stack.

Having so many top-end products in one box also assists in managing this device. URL filtering and anti-virus and other services are easy to deploy but assist in getting your company a good name.

The Infinity product seems amazing but we have a long way to go before saying it is successful.

One of the biggest disappointments is the GUI. I felt it was a little bit more clunky than some competitors. The screens don't flow as easily as they should. Improving user experience will further elevate this product.

The way the management console operates is not user-friendly, either. It needs to become less intrusive. The user experience is not as high as it should be due to the problems with the user interface. The newer products in the range seem to address my concerns, which I have had for even the older products.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for six months.

Having leading-class firewalls with massive growth possibilities made the purchasing decision much easier. Having carried out a few PoCs, the obvious decision was the Check Point solution of Maestro and 6500s in a high availability environment.