We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Meraki MX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Threat Management (UTM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The reporting you receive out of this appliance is excellent. You will not need an external management system."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"It works very well. It has a lot of different functionalities. Its cost is also fine for our customers."
"The response is very quick and they can visually resolve our problems in a short period."
"FortiGate SD-WAN facilitated a smooth transition for our customers between their two internet service providers, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity without any downtime."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"The product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"The dashboard I have found the most valuable in Fortinet FortiGate."
"The architecture of the solution is extraordinary"
"The product is very user-friendly."
"It creates granular security policies based on users or groups to identify, block or limit the usage of web applications."
"It improves user productivity and frees up system resources."
"We can precisely determine who has access rights and who is granted permission, regardless of their connection point."
"The successful performance of the security blades has shown the value of the investment along with the comparable success of leveraging the NGFW over a separate specialized security solution."
"It is a very friendly platform and easy to configure."
"The online documentation is complete and easy to read and understand."
"WAN optimization is the best feature of the solution."
"It's flexible, easy to configure, and easy to manage."
"Since it has an integrated dashboard for all the products, customers can get complete network analytics regarding what the user is doing, monitoring, and observing."
"It has the most advanced security features, for example, layer 3 and layer 7 firewall capabilities and the end team and IPS protection. It also has IPS, and it has very good functioning of cloning services. You don't actually have to touch the device. If you have multiple companies in different countries, you don't really require this device to be touched. You can get it delivered directly to any office of a country, and then you can simply put your configuration over the cloud. It's very simplified and easy to manage. It gives a very good granular visibility about your network. Earlier, a lot of things were lacking in the network. We were unable to identify where the problem was, but after implementing Meraki MX, we are able to dig down and identify where is the problem. We can easily and quickly identify the sources and the root causes of the issues."
"It is very easy to configure."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"Meraki MX offers advanced filtration options, plus it behaves like a router and a firewall at the same time."
"The monitor and the visibility, in this proxy, is very weak."
"The cloud features and integration could be improved."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"To some degree, it's almost a question as to why some of this stuff isn't simpler. For example, for an AP deployment, while it's integrated, the number of steps that you have to go through in order to get the AP up, seems like a lot."
"It would be good if they had fewer updates."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"FortiOS is not simple."
"With the increase of volume of traffic, the required resource/hardware to properly run goes up. Therefore, the hardware engineering to architecture flow has to be more efficient."
"The management of memory in the hardware needs to improve. They have had a lot of issues with memory leakage."
"We would like to see constant improvement in anti-malware functionality and anti-threat protection."
"One feature that could be improved is the internet object in the application control/URL filtering blade."
"They could make the licensing a bit easier to deal with, especially for enterprise-level options."
"When it comes to Check Point's small business gateway series, there might be a need for hardware upgrades, as configuring them can sometimes be a bit challenging."
"The end-user VPN could be improved. It could benefit from some modification."
"The distributor support capability is quite lacking as the problem/incident is rarely solved on the distributor level and instead escalated to the principal."
"I need more UTM protection security features."
"It is very expensive."
"Pricing is an area where the solution lacks since it is an expensive tool."
"As far as what needs to be improved — nothing really comes to mind. It does what we need it to do."
"More detail needed for configuration of the VPN."
"FortiGate is cheaper than Meraki. Even the license renewal is less than Meraki."
"We feel that Cisco provides smaller features, with fewer possibilities versus other solutions out there."
"The product could incorporate tools like ThousandEyes into the system so we can see things directly."
Check Point NGFW doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 277 reviews while Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 58 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Meraki MX is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Juniper SRX Series Firewall. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Meraki MX report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.