Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point IPS vs Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point IPS
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Advanced...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) category, the mindshare of Check Point IPS is 7.1%, down from 10.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is 7.5%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

Greg Tate - PeerSpot reviewer
Great for detection and access with the capabilities of defining specific rules
Support is the biggest area for improvement. Check Point is responsive, however, their support agents seem to be very siloed in their ability and/or product knowledge. It takes time and escalation to get through most tickets as they are passed from one group to another and then back again. We are able to navigate our support issues with the aid of our account team, so I want to underscore that support is indeed responsive. However, the processes support techs have to follow seem to be the root cause of the support response issues.
Carlos Bracamonte - PeerSpot reviewer
Robust, reliable, simple to install and good technical support
We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection. I'm not sure what the remaining threat protection features are off the top of my head. But beyond that, we use URL filtering. We have three approved cases for using external dynamic lists that are stored in a bucket repository. Then, for each URL site that needs to be whitelisted, we add it to the external dynamic list in order to gain access to this email. I would like Wildfire to be implemented. We use the equivalent in Cisco is the integration policies. We have the Wildfire but we are not currently implementing it. We don't have the license to use it, but we are not currently implementing it until we present the use cases that the company gives some value to and they approve the use of it.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The reports are useful in helping to verify the threats where we can see the level of severity in order to be able to take action."
"The reports are well written so that you can understand what type of attack has occurred, the originating IP address, and other details."
"It is also worth noting that many IPS signature comes with detailed background about the vulnerability, and potentially how the vulnerability would affect the network security."
"The solution's IPS functionality and firewall functionality are the solution's most valuable features."
"There's less admin burden to detect these threats as Check Point IPS will do it all for you and suggest the best preventive actions to protect the network."
"Behavior analytics and monitoring capabilities of Check Point IPS are valuable, especially for cybersecurity purposes."
"I can easily monitor all of our connected devices and I get instant notification of reconnections and new connections, which removes some of the monitoring burden."
"IPS signatures can be set quite granularly depending on your environment. You can filter on performance impact, severity, and confidence which makes sizing and adapting easier."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The application control and vulnerability protection are the most valuable features."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is the market leader as far as security gateways and endpoint protection. Additionally, the threat database that is used is one of the best."
"The sandboxing tools offer great prevention for cloud feeds."
"With the IP address flag, I was able to see that I was being hacked. The moment there was an interaction between somebody on my network and that IP, the solution was able to flag it, and we were able to protect ourselves."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall."
"The most valuable feature is its use of machine learning to detect potentially unknown threats."
 

Cons

"I observed on our management that sometimes IPS does not connect to the threat cloud, we have to check and improve it. Otherwise, all of the features are good."
"It requires a lot of people to maintain the solution."
"Enhancements are necessary for the proficiency of notifications in the event of a Social Security incident, whether through email or alternative channels such as SMS."
"The dashboard reports can be easier to generate and customize."
"We have a lot of false positives and the list of IPs are not up to date in terms of their location."
"The hardware-based version of Check Point IPS could be more scalable. Right now, it's not scalable."
"Sometimes we had false positives where packages that were legitimate for us were blocked and we had to unblock them through exceptions."
"Threat Prevention policies are not very easily manageable as there are several profiles/policies/etc. Therefore, there are several ways to add exceptions and check the configuration."
"The solution could benefit from improved AI analytics to predict potential attacks before they occur, similar to NDR systems."
"The price of licenses should be lowered to make it less costly to scale our solution."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"The installation was complicated."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"Mission learning techniques should continue to expand and detect unknown threats on the fly."
"In Africa, the technical support is probably not as good as in Europe and the USA because it's a specific premium support, partner-enabled premium support and all of that. But it's really good, I don't really have any complaints, it's fairly good. I'll give them 80%."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Enabling IPS does not require any additional license purchase from OEM, as it comes by default with the NGFW bundle."
"I give the price of the solution a five out of ten."
"Pricing for this solution is negotiable and I'm happy with our pricing."
"The price of this product should be reduced."
"It is a reasonably priced product."
"I think that the price of support is around $40,000 USD or $50,000 USD per year."
"The module has a considerable cost but you can save by purchasing a package with several modules instead of making a single purchase."
"The tool's licensing model is good. The licensing costs are yearly. I rate it an eight out of ten."
"The product’s pricing is expensive for small companies."
"If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing."
"The price of the solution is higher than others on the market. A price reduction would be beneficial if it does not impact their database quality."
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"It's not too expensive."
"There is an initial, expensive investment but the return is good."
"The pricing could be lower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Check Point IPS?
The most valuable feature of the solution is called tunneling. Tunneling is one of the major security features that hackers cannot penetrate through.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Check Point IPS?
Pricing is average. Usually, the price listed isn't adhered to, and negotiations occur.
What needs improvement with Check Point IPS?
It's hard to specify areas for improvement without a deeper investigation. However, usually, IPS does its job. Some challenges might exist with integration depending on the environment.
Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
Arbor would be the best bid, apart from Arbor, Palo Alto and Fortinet have good solutions. As this is an ISP, I would prefer Arbor.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention?
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is quite competitive, offering extensive threat detection and prevention capabilities, though it is priced higher than some alternatives. I would rate ...
 

Also Known As

Check Point Intrusion Prevention System
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Morton Salt, Medical Advocacy and Outreach, BH Telecom, Lightbeam Health Solutions, X by Orange, Cadence, Nihondentsu, Datastream Connexion, Good Sam, Omnyway, FIASA, Pacific Life, Banco del Pacifico, Control Southern, Xero, Centrify
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point IPS vs. Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.