Check Point NGFW Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is to use it as a security gateway. 

The visibility and the logging are the most valuable features. Also, their interface is second to none. The best thing about it is the interface but it crashes too often. If it can stop crashing that would be great. 

Their support is completely useless. They need to improve that and the stability. The main reason we are moving on from Checkpoint is because of their stability and their support. There are way too many bugs. You just can't get things to work properly.

They don't need to bring any more features. They need to focus on stability. They should stop trying to be funky and stop trying to develop new things to catch people's attention. Just focus on what they already have and make it work. It would be a good product. Just make sure it works. 

When it works, scalability is perfect. 

Six years ago we were using a Fortinet solution. The reason we switched to Checkpoint was because of the central management. It can manage up to hundreds of devices without failing but in reality, it doesn't actually do that. Central management was better than Fortinet back then. That was several years ago. I don't know Fortinet now. The reason we chose Checkpoint was the central management. We needed to manage up to about 700 or 800 devices.

The initial setup depends on how many features you want to turn on. If you just want a simple set-up, with not a lot of features, then it's easy. You can set one up very quickly, within a day. If you want to have a lot of features turned on and your environment is slightly more complex than standard, it can take up to a few months because you will always run into bugs. It's going to stop you from proceeding and you will be battling with it for a long, long time. Contacting support won't always help. You could potentially waste months of your time and not get any value from it. 

We had Checkpoint support engineers for the implementation. The people are helpful. They support their product. The problem is that there were too many problems. Even their support can't fix it. They try their best to help but when the product isn't great, there's not much you can do.

This solution is way too expensive for what it is worth, especially when it doesn't work. It's just pointless. It's time wasted.

I would rate this solution a three out of ten. The reason I give it a three and not zero is because the visibility and the interface are great. Other than that, they're too much of a headache. We've had painful experiences that we never want to go back to. 

We primarily use it for internet security. We use it for firewalling, ePass, and threat detection including anti-malware protection, bug protection, and social inspection. We can also use it for DLP.

The solution helps out in our security goals. It acts as a primary source of protection for threats from the internet and is great for data leakage protection.

Most of the time, it's pretty stable. 

We have all the features we want or need in this appliance. It's been good so far. 

Sometimes there are security bugs, which is frustrating.  

Right now, we have a problem with DLP and this problem has become very big. Check Point, our firewall, is not handling data properly. There seems to be some sort of security bug.

I've used the solution for ten years or so. It's been a decade at least. 

The solution, for the most part, is very stable. We find it to be quite reliable. There are bugs, however, which have caused some issues. 

The solution is not scalable per se. There is only one way to upgrade and that is to buy new appliances.

Currently, we have around 7,000 people using this solution.

Likely, we won't be increasing usage. We are building new releases and we are considering changing this solution to another vendor. We might switch from Check Point to maybe Palo Alto or Cisco. We don't know which yet.

We haven't really dealt with technical support. We typically go through our partners.

We also use Cisco as well. We use Cisco ASA. Check Point, right now, is our primary firewall.

Check Point offers very good management. For an administrator, it's easy to manage this appliance, this firewall. Cisco, historically, has a big problem with this, specifically with FTD firewalls. There also tend to be some bugs you have to contend with.

I can't speak to the initial setup process. Our partner handled it and therefore I wasn't really part of the process. That said, for me. the process is pretty simple.

My understanding is that the deployment took a few days. 

I'd rate the experience of the initial setup at a four out of five. 

About two people were able to handle the implementation process. Typically, they are architects and engineers. 

We had a partner set up the solution for us.

We have seen a decent ROI. I'd rate it at a four out of five. 

I can't speak to the cost of the solution. We deal with it through a partner, and I'm not involved in any of the pricing aspects. 

We are considering switching to Palo Alto or maybe Cisco in the near future. 

We are a customer and an end-user.

Some blades, some function blades on Check Point, are very good, however, it's not all of them. Right now, I know DLP and social inspection are a problem. New users should be aware of this. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The user interface is very good.

The level of security is excellent. It protects our organization well.

It's a good overall product and we have a high level of satisfaction with the features on offer. 

Technical support could be improved. It's hit or miss in terms of the level of service and getting the answers you need.

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

We have hundreds of users that use the solution currently within our company.

We aren't 100% satisfied with technical support. Sometimes you get the help you need and sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's absolutely amazing. Sometimes they're great. However, you can't rely on them being like that all the time. We'd like the service level to be more reliable.

I can't speak to the installation process, as it was handled by an outside firm.

We had an integrator that assisted us with the implementation. 

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations especially if the company is looking for a certain level of security.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We implement Check Point in the front end to protect internet platforms and security platforms. 

Check Point provides very good performance with many solution options and many kinds of modules.

I'd like to see more integration with other solutions. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

This solution is stable and scalable.

We've rarely used support but they've been helpful when we needed them. 

We migrated from Cisco to Check Point. Check Point is easier for the administration console.

Before migrating to Check Point, we tested it in several environments. We used a consultant for deployment and we now have 800 users in the company and six engineers responsible for maintenance. 

We pay an annual license fee. 

I recommend this solution and rate it a 10 out of 10. 

My role is to do implementation and troubleshooting on the Check Point Firewall. We use this firewall for our organization's security by adding restrictions and security from viruses and other tech from the external Internet.

It is used in our internal company-wide network. It protects our company throughout the LAN network.

We have needed to install many third-party devices to provide major security to our organization. Because of Check Point and its many features, we do not require other third-party devices. We only require Check Point to provide the security.

It gives us centralized management for multiple firewalls. For example, if I want to push the same configuration to 10 firewalls, I can push it all at once with the help of the centralized management system.

It is easy to use because it supports Linux language in the CLI. This is a good for someone who already knows Linux language.

The company should increase the learning platform free of charge. For example, Palo Alto and Cisco ASA have very good platforms that are completely free. Almost everyone in this field has good product knowledge. Therefore, I would like more training and expertise to be available for Check Point NGFWs.

I would like the graphic user interface to be easier to use. For example, the NAT policy should be easier to use. Check Point's NAT policy is somewhat confused compared to other competitors.

I have been using it four years and four months.

It is a stable firewall that has new updates. The new updates are very impressive. There is also a good antivirus update which comes out very frequently and is completely stable.

The solution's scalability is good.

With our increasing business, we have given a proposal to increase the number of firewalls.

In my organization, there were five associate consultants included in the deployment process, including me.

The solution has very good, timely support. Most of the time, when we opened a case with their tech support, we have been in a panic situation because of the case's priority. However, the solution that we get is very straightforward and in very short amount of time.

My issues were resolved by the Check Point team or available on the Internet. So, all my problems were resolved.

I have used Palo Alto and Cisco ASA. When I used Check Point, I got to know that the CLI is based on Linux. I already know Linux, so it was very comfortable for me. Apart from that, it was the company's decision. They wanted to use this firewall.

The initial setup was straightforward because I have done training on Check Point. I didn't face any issue while implementing or while configuring it. I only faced a few issues, and they were resolved by the Check Point team.

It takes around nine to 12 months for the complete deployment of this solution. My deployment plan was a three-tier architecture, which is one of Check Point's features.

I deployed it myself with the help of one or two of my colleagues.

I am happy with the investment that we made on Check Point. The reason behind this: It has advanced features for protecting the environment.

I also evaluated Palo Alto and Cisco ASA.

Check Point pros:

• The CLI is very ease to use.
• It provides advanced security threat prevention.

Check Point cons:

• The graphical user interface should be easier to use.
• More training should be provided by Check Point. 

I would recommend this solution because it is a firewall that replaces many other devices. Money-wise, it is good. It also has many features. These can be utilized to protect your environment from outside threats.

You should have a couple of training and hands-on experiences before deploying the changes by yourself on the firewall. It has many features of which people are not knowledgeable so they usually utilize them.

With time, technology is getting better. Check Point is one of these examples. They have changed their products completely from the old R80 version, where their UI and CLI were much different. 

I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.

We use the tool as a data center firewall. Some of our customers use it as a perimeter firewall. We are only using the security gateway.

The product is flexible. I like the product’s performance and throughput.

The cost of add-on features is too high.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

The tool is stable. We haven’t faced any issues after configuring and putting it in production.

We have roughly 7000 appliances. The tool is scalable. I like the scalability of the solution. We have 10 to 20 customers.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

The pricing is moderate. The license cost is good. However, some features like VPN are costly.

We use the solution for our clients. My recommendation depends upon the requirements. I do not recommend the product for an SMB. I recommend it for enterprises. It has good performance and throughput. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

I use CheckPoint in our data center to control the internet and to enable threat prevention. I then integrate it into my center and to my events.

I like the SmartEvent feature. When we see a threat, SmartEvent can create a rule for that. SmartEvent works with the SmartCenter to block a threat attack with a block monitor. The SmartCenter has the management for all the firewalls and data centers in a single dashboard.

It could be more stable and scalable. Check Point price and support could be better.

I have ten years of experience using Check Point NGFW.

Check Point NGFW could be more stable. I think the problem is that the kernel sometimes won't play ball and isn't stable. Sometimes, they have a block, and we have to spend a lot of time fixing it. In contrast, I think Palo Alto and Fortinet are more stable.

Check Point NGFW could be more scalable. I think Palo Alto has more plugins and features, and Check Point needs more features. However, Check Point integration is very complex.

Check Point support could be better. I think Palo Alto has a very clear pricing model. When we have an issue, we create a ticket and receive fast service from Palo Alto. It's good.

The initial setup, in my experience, isn't simple as Fortinet and Palo Alto. It would be better if the person doing it has experience. 

I implemented this solution by myself.

The price could be better. I think Palo Alto pricing is high, and Check Point isn't much better. FortiGate is cheaper. I think when I implemented this solution, I recommended buying a yearly subscription.

When I choose a solution for a customer, I must verify the features, current specifications and make recommendations. When we use an all-in-one firewall solution, we usually recommend using a Palo Alto external firewall. This is because Fortinet has an SD-WAN solution and firewalls, and Palo Alto is the same. But I don't think Check Point has one. When a customer doesn't want to implement many solutions, we recommend using Fortinet or Palo Alto.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Check Point NGFW an eight.

Primarily, we implement the solution at a couple of sites around the world and have created five site VPNs across it. We are running a pretty decent policy to make sure internally our infrastructure is secure.

The product offers excellent security. How open they are with new risks and new vulnerabilities is very helpful in the task of keeping our company safe from malicious attacks.

Newer versions are much more stable.

The UI could use some improvement. It's not as clean or seamless as it could be. 

It's my understanding that the initial setup is a bit complex. There's a bit of a learning curve if you're trying to set it up for the first time and you aren't familiar with the product.

Older versions were a bit unstable. 

We've been using the solution for six or seven years so far. It's been a while. 

While this version seems to be quite stable, Check Point, in previous versions, had a lot of issues when we used to do firmware updates.

We have 200 people on the solution currently. 

I also have experience with Fortinet. I don't have too much, however. It's still very new to me, and therefore it's hard to compare the two solutions. 

While I didn't directly participate in the implementation, from the people that participated, I've heard that it's complicated if you don't know the product very well.

We hired a company to do the implementation. I don't remember the dynamics of the team. The last time it was set up, there were two people on the implementation team. 

While we don't have a direct relationship with the company, we do have business relationships with both Fortinet and Checkpoint partners.

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