Check Point NGFW Reviews

While the solution is good, we wish to have something that is a bit better, as the threats have evolved over time. We have been using Check Point for more than than eight years and are interested in a better solution. We entered a review site which ranks top security firewalls and saw that Palo Alto is ranked number one, followed by Fortinet, with Check Point in the lead. We noticed that Palo Alto was much more expensive than Fortinet, but wished to know which key features differentiated the two. 

Though we did not take issue with the price of Check Point NGFW, we felt that it was providing us with inadequate support here in Uganda. This is why we decided to switch solutions. I should note that I do not have a technical background and am responsible for procurement. 

The value we were getting for our money was an issue. I work for a bank for which security is very important, but we were not being assured of the appropriate support. The licensing fees we were paying did not equate with adequate local support. We had already had a bad experience with Check Point, so we did not bother with a quote from it and, instead, got one from several local companies that can support either Palo Alto or Fortinet. 

We do not feel that the local support given in Uganda is equitable with the pricing. 

While the pricing is okay, the local Ugandan support one gets is not commensurate with it. 

I rate Check Point NGFW as a six out of ten. 

We primarily use this solution for routing and the protection of our internal corporate network.

The most valuable feature is the management using the Single Pane of Glass.

The user interface for management could be improved.

In the future, I would like to see support for SD-WAN capabilities.

I have been working with the Check Point Next-Generation firewall for four years.

I would like to see better stability in newly-released versions.

The scalability is very good.

Dealing with the support team in Israel can be a struggle because of the difference in working hours, holidays, and priorities.

I would with firewall solutions from several vendors including Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Meraki.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to ensure that they have good support from local experts. The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product has to do with the capabilities of the smallest models. Care should be taken to select the appropriate one for your environment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The Check Point NGFW is the best product that I have ever used. It has pluses and minuses, as do others, but the usability, simplicity, and the configuration abilities are very user-friendly. After a while, other vendors just don’t come close to it.

The second thing is that is just works and it does it with ease. The upgrades and bug fixes are frequent and well documented. Also, the patches just work ;-)

There are some negatives but as I already said, they aren’t many and from my point of view, we can see past them.

It has made our lives and working in the company a lot easier. We have a better overview of the logs and what happens with the traffic in our company. Which means that the search for the certain logs is easy, quick and smooth. The overview of the logs is also very good as it is very detailed. The installation is allot quicker as it was before what also helps us with the implementation of the firewall rules. The rule consolidation is also very important as we have more than 60 fw rule change requests per day.

The rules are very easy to deploy and can be optimized pretty quickly. The R80 has a great feature on how the rules are processed, which costs less in terms of CPU and threads than it did before.

The features that are integrated into the firewall are very useful for our everyday use. Examples of these are the log manager, the firewall monitor commands, and the Linux commands. These are all very useful and helpful.

The VPN tunnels are easy to set up once you understand how they have to be configured.

One of the main features that need improvement is the rule filter export. All of the other vendors can export the filtered IPS as a PDF or CSV file, but with the smart dashboard, it’s just not possible. One can only export the whole rule base and then search for the IPS, which is super time-consuming as you can’t send the whole rule base to a customer. You would get weird questions about certain rules, why they are deployed or configured as they are, and maybe even get unwanted tips on how to change them.

We have been using Check Point NGFW for eight years.

In terms of stability, this solution is very good.

The scalability is high.

The technical support is very good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is very easy.

I implemented and deployed Check Point NGFW alone.

Maybe the pricing is a bit high but you get the durability and the duration.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Cisco ASA.

Our customers primarily buy the solution to protect the network from malware at the perimeter of the Network. The next-gen firewalls help the customer to have an application-level control of the traffic.

The features that I have found most valuable are its flexibility and user interface. This is already a well-established product in the market for quite a long time, more than 20 years. They've got a huge customer base.

In terms of what could be improved, I'd like granularity where you can have all the levels of policies that are defined. 

In additional feature that could be added to this solution in the future is micro-segmentation, like Palo Alto has on the firewall itself.

I began using Check Point Next Generation Firewall very recently, about four or five months ago.

We have an internal team for maintenance.

In terms of scalability, what we have seen is that it has a big deployment right now. So it all depends on what kind of environment the customer has. If he's already a Check Point user, it is easy for them, but if it is migrating from one platform to another, it is a little complex. One more thing is that the skillset availability required for Check Point is, in terms of implementation, a little less compared to others. The resources and the technical stuff are there for implementation. You find fewer people on Check Point compared to Sophos or Fortinet or any other platform.

The installation process, if it is a greenfield opportunity, is easy. If it is a migration from one platform to another, you need to have expertise on both the technologies. Let's say for example you're migrating from Fortinet to Check Point, or from Sophos to Check Point or Check Point to any other, you need to have expertise on the platform, even though you should have good experience in terms of migrating and technologies.

In my experience, Check Point provides both in-depth experience and cost-effectiveness compared to Palo Alto. So, Check Point is good for customers already using Check Point and Palo Alto is for anybody who wants to have the latest and most advanced features and has a good budget.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Check Point NGFW an 8.

We primarily use this product for cloud computing security. It is an integration platform for IPS and I also use it for performance monitoring.

I also coach classes on the use of this firewall, which is installed on my personal laptop.

This product is more secure than other firewalls, such as FortiGate.

The information stored in the logs is very descriptive and includes a lot of details.

The dynamic port features are better when compared to other firewalls.

This firewall is difficult to manage and use when you first begin using it. However, once you are used to it, the interface is comfortable and easy to use.

The Smart Control feature is hard to install.

In the future, I would like to see more features in the unified security management platform.

This is a reliable firewall.

Scalability is not an issue with Check Point.

Technical support from Check Point is good.

I have experience with other firewalls including FortiGate. Check Point is more secure, although it is more difficult to deploy and configure.

Until you have some experience, the installation and configuration are difficult.

The licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis and I am happy with the pricing.

Check Point is responsible for inventing several firewall security features.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it because it the most secure firewall on the market.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am using this solution for perimeter security in the company. Our firewall security is centralized under one management. Also, we use this firewall to manage some of the VPN clients and the employees' access across the company. 

Each firewall is capable of using the VPN client, but we only use two. We have five in total, but we only use two for these issues.

I am using the firmware version for the operating system. The blades are firewalled for IPS and mobile access.

Last year, we used the Check Point Identity Awareness Software Blade. Now, we only use a normal firewall with IP address rules, address destination, and services. Then, we can filter by users. So, my boss has access to these things by user. Even if it's connected with the Active Directory, we can filter by user name, or in this case by server name, and it works perfectly. This is very valuable for our company.

The most valuable features about Check Point are the API and automation process.

Using the GUI, you can add comments from your PC or the client server. If I want to check the firewall rules, I can send one line of command to determine if it is configured or not. 

Its implementation and integration with the rest of the network are better than its competitors.

The stability needs improvement for its version releases. They have a feature called Inline Layer as part of the R80.10 release. In the last version, it still had bugs and is not working very well. I would like the developers to release a version that is more stable, because if you start to use the latest release and try to use this newest feature, I'm not 100 percent sure that it will work very well. After six months of development, it might start working better. However, at the beginning, it's not a good choice to implement in your company with your first attempt. But one or two releases later, it might be better. 

If you only have one vendor and they are downgraded or no longer a leader in their industry, then you need to change the entire solution, making it more expensive. For example, Check Point's components are not interchangeable with other vendors.

Around four years.

The stability of the firewall is nice if you use the legacy mode, because the new mode is not good. Things worked in version 77, which is older. It was more stable. When they jumped from version 77 to 88, sometimes things didn't work that used to work in the earlier version.

The scalability of the firewall depends on the model. In terms of the implementation, it's really easy.

We have about 25 users for the entire solution. We have two engineers who work on deployments and implementation. We have another 18 engineers who do support and operations. They have responsibility to monitor the firewall 24/7.

It protects the core network and ISP: the routing, switching, and APM backbone. This is around 8,000 pieces of equipment. 

We don't have plans to increase our usage right now.

I would rate the technical support as a seven out of 10. Sometimes, it's difficult to get them to understand what the issue is. Sometimes, the issue is not resolved, then we solve it by ourselves with Check Point's documentation, which can be useful. When you open a case with Check Point, they can be a little slow. Sometimes, they don't solve things.

In the beginning, we used Fortinet, Juniper, and Cisco. Now, we only use Check Point for firewalls. 

Last year, we changed the Fortinet firewall to the Check Point firewall. The Check Point API let me make 100 net rules in just 10 minutes, which saved us time.

The administration is awful in Fortinet. They have the FortiGate portal on an HTTP portal. Therefore, if you want to make a change, you can make a change. But if you do the change, then it's directly applied on the network, and we don't want to do that. We configure and change the policy and routing. We only apply the changes in the night. However, with Fortinet, you need to configure and apply the changes at the same time. So, it's not useful for our operations.

With Fortinet, you need to duplicate the rules from the DMZ to the Internet and the Internet to the DMZ. In Check Point, you only use one rule, which works on both sites.

The initial setup is really easy. You can do it in 30 minutes. Setting up an environment for a firewall and its management with a licensed demo took me an hour last week, and that includes the time for configuring the rules. The whole installation is 30 minutes and the configuration is another 30 minutes.

If you are implementing from another vendor, Check Point has a program called SmartMove. Then, all you need is the configuration of the previous firewall. Once you do some optimization, then you are ready for the integration. This might take a month overall.

We consulted with one partner of Check Point, who is our provider. If the issue is really big, then we open a case with Check Point directly via the partner. My experience with them was really nice. It was the best experience that I had ever had.

They have amazing engineers. Their expertise is unbelievable. They do integrations really well. They could improve on routing and networking, but the product is what is important for me. 

The firewall is only for protection. It is not used to sell services.

The pricing and licensing are expensive. If you compare it with Fortinet, then it is cheaper on a yearly basis. However, Check Point is the most expensive firewall right now in terms of licenses and its appliance. My recommendation is if you want a long-term investment, then you should use an open server. If you use an open server, then the latency is really low. If you pay for a full appliance, it's more expensive.

Check Point's web administration is not complete. If you compare it to Fortinet's web administration, Check Point's web administration is not nice. However, Check Point's full solution, including SmartConsole, is better than Fortinet's solution.

If you use Apple computers or Linux, the product may not be a good choice for you.

I would rate the solution as a seven point eight out of 10. They can improve some things. They can make it more flexible in terms of its software. It is a good solution, and I like it. For me, it's the best firewall solution.

We use this product as firewall protection.

We are a utility company, so we need efficient antivirus protocols. The firewall support is extremely important to our organization. Checkpoint helps us protect our company from outside threats.

It is easy to configure and it is a valuable antivirus protection. I especially like the IPS feature of this product.

The presentation of the reports need to be more user-friendly. 

Sometimes we have problems. In those cases, we just need to reboot the system.

The scalability of the solution is not great for us because we have old equipment. With newer equipment, I think the scalability would be much better. It is no fault of the solution itself. 

The Checkpoint tech support takes a long time to resolve problems. 

Prior to Checkpoint, we considered Cisco. 

It was a complex setup. We had a partner configure the equipment. 

The price is high in comparison to other solutions. 

We are currently considering Fortinet as another possible option. 

After much evaluation, we have decided to change our firewall.

We primarily use the solution for security.

Check Point NGFW is a stable and user-friendly solution. It has increased the security level and stability within our organization. With the ATP solution, it works and is fully competent. It can catch many zero-day attacks and it fits NGFW well,

The most valuable features are IPS and Antivirus. 

The Blades work fine and the performance optimization is great.

In some features, it is not easy to use the Check Point firewall. 

The IPSEC VPN setup is not easy to configure. In some cases, if the VPN is not established, it is very hard to troubleshoot the configuration. It does not address the problem well. 

The upgrading process takes too much time.

I've used the solution for seven years.

The stability is very good. I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

In most cases, they answer our ticket in one day. They are willing to solve the problems at hand.

The initial setup is not easy, however, it is also not very complex. We have to use both the Gaia and smart console interface and it should be checked for some conf from the CLI.

We did and their expertise was high. We did not face many problems.