Check Point NGFW Reviews

We are a system integrator and the Check Point Next-Generation Firewall is one of the solutions that we implement for our clients. It is primarily used for data protection, VPNs, and sandboxing. We also use it in our own data center.

The most valuable features are application control, regulation, and threat prevention.

Compliance and centralized management can be improved.

I have been using the Check Point NGFW for perhaps ten years.

This firewall runs 24 hours a day and it is stable.

It scales okay because they are SCADA compliant and follow the industry standards. It is best suited to enterprise-level organizations.

Technical support is located in Prague, Israel, and America. The support is good and they are quick.

We have also worked with Fortinet a little bit. We switched to Check Point because our team is a perfect fit for it. We know the solution well.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the size of the environment. Our largest solution took us between 10 and 20 days.

We have a contract with the vendor to implement and deploy this solution for customers. There are three engineers on the staff who are responsible for maintenance and support, including dealing with tickets.

In total, working with this solution, we have four engineers and two junior administrators.

It is quite an expensive product, although security is a top priority. For people who want security, the price is not a problem, and everything is included in the price of the license.

This is the number one, best firewall on the market. My biggest complaint is that the centralized management has to be improved.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We provide solutions for various customers where we apply Check Point Firewalls, either for a VPN gateway or for securing their networks. We have provided them to a couple of financial customers to protect their mobile banking as well.

It has good features for searching the firewall rules and it has drastically changed daily operations. It's very easy, even for novice users or newcomers, to operate and manage this device. It has improved our operations that way.

The most valuable feature of the firewall is the packet inspection. That is an amazing feature from Check Point. Apart from that, we do have identity solutions which we use on a regular basis. Both are very good.

It would be great if the access management, the user management features, were improved in terms of the number of users that can be connected, and how users can access the various resources with the help of firewall authentication.

Also, one of the challenges I hear about from customers or engineers who work with and operate Check Point firewalls is not about the technical capabilities of the product but about understanding the product. There should be whitepapers available on the Check Point portal so that people can understand them more easily.

I have been using Check Point's firewalls for almost 12 years. I started with the IP390.

Stability has improved a lot from Check Point's very early days over the last 12 years. Back then we had to reboot the firewall after every two to four days.

The firewalls are scalable with our workload. We are at about 20 to 30 percent utilization so even if we doubled of our existing network resources and load on the firewalls, they would still have the space to scale. They're enough for the networks that we have implemented.

We recently finished a deployment and it's still in the user acceptance test phase. As of now, I cannot say anything in terms of increased usage. But for the customers that we have deployed it for within India and the APAC region, so far the results have been pretty good.

I have used technical support a couple of times, when it was required, for hardware replacements. Of course, once or twice I contacted them for active devices when we had some glitches. But that turned out to have nothing to do with Check Point.

Overall, technical support has been good. They understand the situation and what part needs to be replaced or what needs troubleshooting through remote support tools.

Before Check Point we used Cisco. And we use Cisco for a couple of customers because it's already pre-deployed, so it's not in our hands. We manage operations, so we are still managing Cisco devices. We don't have Juniper right now, but we have Palo Alto for one of our customers.

The initial setup is very straightforward. When we boot the firewall we have instructions which say how to connect to the QR, and from that portal you go to your gateway and configure all the required network interfaces. Once you have installed your Smart controller, you need not log into the firewall every time. Instead, you can log in through your Smart controller. That's a pretty good method which no other firewall provides.

For the very basic features, it does not take more than two days. But, for a full-fledged implementation, it can take around two months.

Our implementation strategy is to replace existing firewalls in the network. We try to keep the business downtime as short as possible, especially for business-critical applications.

For deployment and maintenance of these firewalls we have a team, worldwide in different regions: APAC, Europe, America, and the Middle East, although in the Middle East we don't use Check Point.

We have definitely achieved ROI with Check Point firewalls.

We definitely evaluate other options based on the customer's budget, and the stability and technical specs of the firewall. We generally choose Check Point as our preferred product vendor.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Check Point's firewalls is that they are not complex.

I'm expecting a lot of solutions from Check Point and if there are more solutions from them, that would be great. I would like to see more product development.

Overall, I would rate it at 10 out of 10. It's the best firewall in the market.

We are using the new version of Check Point NGFW. 

We use the solution for web page protection to provide the security service which is lacking in Bolivia, a poverty ridden country. 

I like the facility of the product configuration. The ease with which the solution can be put into production makes it easy for my employers and for me to provide client support. 

The interface could be better. There is much equipment that is involved in the monitoring of many clients in a single interface. 

With other platforms, such as WatchGuard, it is very simple to manage four, five or six of these. We are talking about a lot of clients. The platforms for doing monitoring should be addressed. 

The solution boasts good stability. 

The solution boasts good scalability. 

I have not had need to make use of technical support. 

The initial setup is easy. 

When it comes to the deployment and maintenance, there are two people involved, one for the deployment and the other for monitoring, consisting of an engineer and a technician. 

I feel that the clients are very satisfied with the product.

I don't have any particular advice when it comes to the deployment process. This will depend on the client's needs. 

I rate Check Point NGFW as an eight out of ten. 

Check Point has strong security features as well as some decent monitoring and management capabilities.

My customers complain that the interface isn't user-friendly.

I have been using Check Point for eight years.

Check Point stable. I've had no problems.

Check Point is scalable.

Check Point support is good.

Check Point's setup process isn't very user-friendly.

Check Point is a little more expensive than FortiGate.

I rate Check Point nine out of 10. I work with both Check Point and FortiGate. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Check Point is more secure than FortiGate. However, Fortigate is more affordable and user-friendly. FortiGate offers seamless solutions to customers, so If they want a solution that's easy to use, they go with FortiGate.

It is our next-generation firewall and IPS.

We had some security issues that WatchGuard could not resolve. Since installing Check Point, we have not had any troubles. We don't have any security problems anymore.

Also, as we are systems integrators, we could not offer only one brand to our customers. We had to expand to several solutions to enable customers to make their own decisions.

It's a gateway and we can integrate some of their functionalities. It's a gateway for us to work with them. Compared to the previous solution we had - WatchGuard - Check Point really works.

We looked very closely at ArcSight's solution because it's a multi-vendor solution. With ArcSight we could have Check Point, we could have RSA, we could have any brand and integrate several brands, from a security point of view. With Check Point, you cannot do so, you can integrate with Check Point products. Check Point forces the customer to buy only one vendor's solution but the trends of the market are not to work with only one vendor. If Check Point could work with other vendor solutions, that would an improvement.

It would also help if they had solutions for the SMB market. Check Point is only useful for customers that have a big IT budget. If they don't have the IT budget, the customer has to buy a solution that from another vendor.

For the last 10 or 12 years, Check Point has been at the top of the industry ratings, so this demonstrates they make good products. The stability is really good.

Technical support is really good. We work with a partner from Check Point, a very good partner. The time of response is very good. We are satisfied with the solutions that Check Point has provided us.

Before using Check Point we were using WatchGuard, but it was not a good brand. Support from them was very difficult. We decided on Check Point because, first of all, their salespeople did a good job. In addition, their position in the market helped us decide to buy. Also, we are systems integrators and many of our customers use Check Point. Their feedback helped us make the decision to go with Check Point.

An important criterion when selecting a vendor is that the vendor has to provide support here in Peru. Our experience with WatchGuard not having a local representative was that the support was not good in terms of time of response as well as difficulties with the idioms of the language. We speak Spanish and the support was only in English, so it was difficult.

I'm not part of the technical staff. But from what I heard, the setup was fine. I believe the installation and deployment were without any problems.

Check Point solutions are very expensive here. It's good, but it's expensive.

Some vendors offer a PoC. When you do a PoC you can more easily see which is the better solution. We would recommend requiring a PoC.

I would rate Check Point an eight out of 10. They're not a 10 because of their pricing.

Our primary use of Check Point NGFW is for network protection.

The most valuable feature of Check Point NGFW is it is a complete solution for protecting not only the network but the applications. Additionally, it provides a hybrid cloud solution.

The whole solution has room for improvement.

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

The solution is very stable.

Check Point NGFW has been scalable.

I would rate the technical support of Check Point NGFW a seven out of ten.

The installation is straightforward.

We have one staff member that does the implementation of the solution.

I would say that the customer has to implement Check Point NGFW with the reseller. They have experience in the implementation and with security.

I rate Check Point NGFW a ten out of ten.

I have certain customers who make use of the solution for providing security in respect of internet access. I am aware only of the solution acting as a firewall. 

My customers cite performance and ease of configuration as two of the solution's most valuable features. 

The price is middling. It's much more expensive than Fortinet, although not so expensive when compared with Palo Alto. 

The solution is significantly more expensive than Fortinet, although this holds true to a lesser extent when compared with Palo Alto. 

The solution is significantly more expensive than Fortinet, although this holds true to a lesser degree when compared with Palo Alto. 

I do not have much familiarity with Check Point NGFW, although I do have several customers who make use of it. I can mainly comment based on what I have come across in user reviews in magazines.

I know the solution to be one of the top players in the world at the moment. 

As Check Point NGFW does not compare favorably price-wise with Fortinet, I am inclined to deduct a point from its rating and rate it as a nine out of ten.

We primarily use it for security.

The most valuable features for us are the solution's identity awareness and intrusion prevention.

The solution is very stable.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

Technical support is very good.

The complexity could be fixed. It's a bit complex to set up, for example. They could make it a streamlined and easier process. 

In a future release, it would be nice if they added web administration capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for about 20 years. It's been two decades at this point. I've used it for quite a while. 

The stability of the solution has been excellent so far. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability of the product is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can. It's not hard. 

We have found the technical support to be very helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support we get from them.

The initial setup is not easy. It's a bit complex. 

We're a partner.

I'd recommend this solution to other users and companies. We've been happy with its capabilities. 

I'd give the solution a rating of nine out of ten.