Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) Reviews

My main use case for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is to provide secure and optimized access to corporate resources for our hybrid workforce or the users who are working from home. We have many employees working from different locations, so we needed a solution that could deliver consistent security without forcing all traffic through our on-prem firewall. Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) gave us a cloud-delivered security platform that combines Secure Web Gateway, Firewall as a Service, and Zero Trust Access.

We use it to secure internet traffic, enforce web usage policies, and give remote users secure access to internal applications without exposing them directly to the internet. It helps us to segment users and devices, reducing lateral movement risks.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) stands out because it brings multiple security functions into a single, unified, cloud-native platform. The Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) feature is a major highlight as it gives users seamless and secure access to internal resources without requiring a full-blown VPN, which improves both security and user experience. The Secure Web Gateway component blocks malicious sites, phishing attempts, and unauthorized content in real time.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers data loss prevention capabilities that help ensure sensitive data does not leave the organization either accidentally or intentionally. Another standout feature is the centralized management console where we can manage all policies, monitor user activities, and respond to incidents.

We have 200 to 300 users that we are managing through Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81). The biggest win for us has been the visibility and control. We now know what is happening across all branches and users, regardless of their location, and we can respond to threats in real time.

The built-in traffic optimization and routing intelligence ensures low latency and reliable connections. Integration with Check Point's ThreatCloud provides real-time threat intelligence, making detections and preventions more accurate. It is a full-stack solution that covers all key network and access needs in one place.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers strong features, but there are areas that could be improved. One area for improvement is integration with third-party identity providers. It works with standard SAML and SSO, but we would prefer deeper integrations with solutions such as Ping for more advanced identity-based policies. Additionally, a mobile-specific client or lightweight agent would be helpful for securing access from smartphones, especially in BYOD environments.

We would appreciate more granular reporting and analytics, including better drill-down capabilities to investigate specific users or app activity. The logs are comprehensive, but filtering them can sometimes feel messy. The user interface on the management portal could be more intuitive, especially when managing multiple sites or remote offices. Some of the policy configuration steps are nested and could be streamlined.

I have been using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) for a year now.

The deployment was mostly straightforward. We did not face any challenges with the pricing, licensing, or setup cost.

It is a very stable solution with 99.9% uptime.

We are scaling up as our users are increasing. We have not faced any major challenges in scalability. The scalability is very good, worthy of 10 out of 10.

As we grow or add new branches, it is easy to onboard them without heavy IT involvement. The cloud-native model ensures we are not tied to any specific location or hardware, which has been a great game changer in terms of agility.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) support provides on-time responses. We use the premium support of Check Point and the support experience has been really awesome. I would rate support 10 out of 10.

We have found the support and documentation from Check Point to be responsive and helpful.

We used VPN solutions before switching to Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81). VPN solutions did not have granular control. We have web servers with different services, and we wanted to give access to only one particular service to specific users, but that was not available with VPNs. Granular policy configurations were not available in VPNs, which is why we switched to Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81).

The setup was smooth for a solution as comprehensive as Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81). We followed Check Point's deployment guides and used their onboarding support, which helped streamline the process. Connecting our branches through Check Point Harmony Connect was easy. We deployed lightweight SD-WAN appliance and connected them to the nearest cloud enforcement points. Overall, it was a clean rollout that did not require any massive network changes, which was a big plus for us.

We saw a clear return on investment since implementing Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) after using it for over a year. We saw returns in terms of security posture and operational efficiency. During a phishing campaign, some of our users received emails with malicious links, and instead of relying on endpoint detection alone, Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) blocked access to those URLs at the network level before users could click through. This reduced the risk of credential theft and saved our security team hours of incident response.

We have been able to retire legacy appliances such as traditional VPN concentrators and on-prem proxies, which cut costs and reduced maintenance overhead. Having one unified cloud platform simplified our architecture and saved our team substantial manual work. The ability to provide secure access from anywhere, especially during employee travel or remote work periods, has helped us maintain productivity without sacrificing security.

The setup was mostly straightforward. We did not face any challenges with the pricing, licensing, or setup cost.

We evaluated other SASE solutions including Zscaler and Palo Alto's Prisma Access. Zscaler was strong on web filtering and user-based access, but its licensing model was complex and the setup required more upfront efforts. Prisma has deep security features, especially for organizations already using Palo Alto Networks, but we felt it was heavier to manage and came with a steeper learning curve. We decided to go with Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) due to its tight integration with other Harmony products and unified management, as we were already using Harmony Endpoint.

If you are looking for a solution that can provide internet access and private access to your resources with a feature-rich product that provides granular control over user access, I would highly recommend Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81). It is a great solution with different features, including DLP support.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) strikes a great balance between security, usability, and scalability, especially for distributed and hybrid environments. The few minor areas for improvement, such as UI and analytics depth, do not outweigh the overall value and performance it delivers. If you are already invested in the Check Point ecosystem, it feels a natural extension that enhances your security posture without overcomplicating deployment or management.

We are a customer of Check Point. My overall rating for this solution is 9 out of 10.

My main use case for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is a simplified management for a zero-trust approach, and it's very useful for all the clients that have a very big infrastructure.

It helps with zero trust in those big infrastructures by being very helpful for all the companies that have a lot of users in a VPN scenario, working all around the globe. Users will try to access with various Wi-Fi connections, hotel Wi-Fi, or airport Wi-Fi, and the zero-trust approach is very helpful in that scenario explicitly.

The best features Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers include ease of management and the zero-trust approach, which stand out most for me.

The ease of management stands out because the interface is very simple. For example of a very difficult interface, the F5 interface is very outdated, while the Check Point one is very new and user-friendly.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) has positively impacted my organization by being very easy to integrate with other technologies, and it's not impactful on the traffic, so it can do its job without being heavy on the traffic. I don't notice any speed improvement from the integration part, but since it's not negative, it's positive.

Improvements for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) could be made for users with poor connections, as it can impact performance. We could try a more light approach for all users who are not in the office.

The user experience is very nice, but for users who are not on-site, I'm unsure how that can be improved if the problem is the connection.

My advice to others looking into using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is that it's not the most friendly when a user is a newbie, so be prepared for that. It can be frustrating, but you get there.

My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer, as we are a partner. I was offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) an 8.

I have experience with this product as a user. Currently, the Check Point product that I worked with mostly was the Firewall, the R81. I'm not working with Check Point WAF, Web Application Firewall yet, and currently, I've not configured that yet. I'm working with CloudGuard Network Security. I interacted with Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) once. I configured it for a client, and they're currently using it.

I appreciate the console of Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) because everything is well-centralized in one place. The support is good because it's fast. Once I raise a ticket, it's usually picked up very fast and escalated appropriately. That's the reason I've interacted with it so far.

The Zero Trust Network Access feature in Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is valuable. With that, I'm sure that the security is up to level, and it's also giving security people more time to focus on other priorities. The Zero Trust approach is quite advantageous for us.

The advanced analytics in Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) gave us some good recommendations that we followed. The robust AI can help analyze logs for us.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) provides a centralized console, which is a significant advantage. Once you start using it, you get the attention of the client, and I'd rate it one of the best.

When I'm raising a ticket for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81), it's a bit technical for non-technical people. It could have been clearer and easier for them to raise a ticket because my client had difficulty raising the ticket themselves.

The real-time threat prevention capabilities in Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) have room for improvement in my opinion.

Positive

The cloud-native architecture in Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is something I haven't interacted with unfortunately. The deployment I worked with is purely on-premise, so I haven't interacted with the cloud currently.

The artificial intelligence in Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) could be enhanced to summarize logs and threat information. The AI could help make it easier to determine what has been happening at a certain time and what has caused specific incidents. I would give this review an overall rating of seven.

My main use case for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is to deploy and troubleshoot issues in the customer's environment and create new policy or bypass rules.

The best features that Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers include Zero Trust, which I find very helpful as it allows me to do segmentation on the work-from-home users, enabling me to deploy a gateway for threat prevention in each region, for example, Asia, Europe, etc.

The Zero Trust and segmentation have helped my team and our customers significantly because we are able to protect every scope and allow the work-from-home users to access internal resources while passing through a threat prevention gateway, ensuring that everything is safe. Furthermore, the Zero Trust also works on the machine itself, allowing me to just do application filtering and URL filtering on the client itself on Harmony SASE.

Check Point Harmony SASE needs improvement as it is a very new product that lacks very basic features, and it can start working more with the customer for better implementation.

The product is lacking features that other competitors have, making it quite challenging to migrate customers to this solution because it feels very much unfinished.

I have been using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) for around three months.

Check Point Harmony SASE is stable most of the time, but there are still some issues that are hard to troubleshoot.

Check Point Harmony SASE's scalability is good; it can handle growth easily, allowing me to easily add another region and gateway to have more people join in, although deploying the client itself is a bit challenging. If I have a tool to deploy everything in my domain, it should be fair game and easy.

Customer support for Check Point Harmony SASE is actually amazing, with people working really hard, listening to every issue and request, and replying within hours.

I would rate customer support as a nine on a scale of 1 to 10.

I previously used a different solution; the customer used Harmony Connect, but since Harmony Connect is going on end-of-support, they are moving the product and migrating to SASE, and the customer was somewhat forced to make this decision.

I have not seen a return on investment at the moment since the product is still ongoing, and the migration is never really over, so we are always working on it.

I am not aware of the pricing, setup cost, and licensing, but I would say the setup cost is our resource, and we have invested many hours into this project.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81).

Not much has improved for my team or our customers since using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) in terms of security, efficiency, or user experience.

I would suggest to others looking into using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) to wait a bit more because right now it is still in rough shape, but later on, if it improves, they should probably request a PoC, proof of concept, and see for themselves if the product is for them.

I rate Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) seven out of ten because it is an unfinished product, and if it is worked on, it will become great, but right now, it is still lacking many things that other competitors have.

My main use case for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is mostly ZTNA and Firewall as a Service for our remote users on VPN.

A specific example of how I use ZTNA or Firewall as a Service for our remote users is that on company-issued laptops, we deploy ZTNA with the agent running. We ensure that their internet access is secure, regardless of where the user is. It will connect to the SASE POP, which is running the Firewall as a Service, nearest to the user. Even when they're not on company premises, they're still getting to the internet securely.

I don't have anything else to add about how I'm using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) or any other ways it's supporting my remote workforce.

The best features Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers in my experience are ZTNA and Firewall as a Service.

I consider ZTNA and Firewall as a Service to be the best features because it reduces the security threats we have, given the users themselves, considering all the network edges in this case are untrusted. ZTNA ensures that people access using least privilege. In other words, people can only access services that they need to access. This reduces many of the issues we have within, because a user is not exposed to the applications they don't need to access.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) has positively impacted my organization by leading to overall security improvements, especially for our VPN users.

I have definitely noticed security improvements, particularly with user incidents, especially the remote ones. The ones on-premises are easily protected behind the Check Point firewall that is on-premises. However, for those on VPN, that's where the SASE comes in to protect them either way, regardless of whether they are on-premises or off-premises. The protection is all-round, wherever they are, helping us avoid many issues they would typically pick up when off-premises without the SASE.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) could be improved as there's complexity during initial configuration, and there's a learning curve. Specifically, it requires fine-tuning for the users, especially for ZTNA. A lot of information needs to be collected, and you have to ensure all users have access to applications that they need. It's not easy to get it right from the start, so it takes fine-tuning over time.

I don't have more to add about the needed improvements.

I have been using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) for one year.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is stable.

Check Point Harmony SASE's scalability is something we've not really had a big change with the number of users, and I don't necessarily have that kind of information.

I did not previously use a different solution before Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81).

I have seen a return on investment, specifically in terms of fewer incidents. I can put it at around 80% in the context of incidents with remote users since I started using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81).

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was straightforward.

Before choosing Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81), we did not evaluate any other options.

My advice to others looking into using Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is that the SASE solution speaks for itself. Don't trust anyone or anything - this is the Zero Trust concept. Whether it be on-premises or off-premises, a solution that gives you all-round security is worth investing in.

My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.

I was not offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

I found this interview useful, but maybe you can consider separating the role of the person or the interviewee, whether they are a partner, a reseller, or just a customer, and then custom-tailor the questions based on that sort of path that they've chosen.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) a 10 out of 10.

There are a lot of regulatory restrictions in Turkey. So, most of us interact with a ZTNA module, not the entire SASE. We utilize the SSL VPN capability with 81. We consider replacing our legacy SSL VPN with ZTNA.

The best key features of Harmony are stabilization, private access, and Internet access. Harmony's support for bidirectional traffic and UDP protocol can be improved. Harmony SASE provides cost efficiency. If the prices were reduced, all customers could access it more easily.

If Harmony SASE supported bidirectional traffic and the UDP protocol, it would be better. It would also be beneficial if Check Point improved the protocol support. 

Additionally, a local data center in Turkey would enhance the product, as currently, our Internet traffic goes to another country, which is problematic for us.

I have been working with Harmony SASE for about three years.

After the last improvement, I can say it is much more stable now. However, it would be great if Check Point established a data center in Turkey, as our Internet traffic currently goes to another country.

I would rate the technical support as ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is absolutely easy. It's a ten out of ten.

When it comes to return on investment, I would estimate about 20%.

Cost efficiency is a consideration, as SASE products are not the cheapest security products. A score of six or seven out of ten is a realistic assessment of the pricing.

I have tried other vendors like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and AppGate. Check Point is more interesting regarding security experience. Other vendors may offer better user experiences, however, Check Point had only one critical vulnerability last year, which is minimal compared to at least twenty from other vendors.

I rate the overall product as ten out of ten. I tried many vendors—Fortinet, Palo Alto, and AppGate—but Check Point is better than others. As a partner, I work with enterprise and medium enterprise clients, including some SMB customers.

I usually use Check Point Harmony SASE for firewall and firewall application management for my internal network traffic.

The features are excellent, particularly the user interface and user accessibility. It provides clear transparency on the traffic and network distribution. The firewall management is the most valuable feature for me.

The connectivity issue can be improved as at times it lags when connecting to their server.

I have been using it for more than two years.

There are some lags and glitches with connectivity, so I would rate the stability as between seven or eight out of ten.

Check Point Harmony SASE is scalable. I would rate it nine out of ten for scalability.

Customer service is excellent. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

I used Cisco before, however, not with this organization. It was with a different organization.

The setup is not that complex, but it does require a little skill. However, one person would be enough to implement it.

We are saving 40% of our time, which is good. It is a little bit expensive, yet the return on investment is there.

It is a bit expensive. That said, since we are saving 40% of our time, it's reasonable.

I would rate Check Point Harmony SASE highly. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My primary use case for Perimeter 81 is to have a secure remote workforce. With colleagues stationed across the globe, it ensures a secure network connection, enabling seamless remote work. 

This is particularly vital for our multinational operations, as it guarantees that our team can access critical resources and applications securely from anywhere in the world. 

Perimeter 81 has become the cornerstone of our remote work infrastructure, providing peace of mind and reliability to our globally dispersed workforce.

Perimeter 81 has been instrumental in transforming our organization. It has seamlessly integrated security into our remote work setup, allowing us to adapt swiftly to the evolving work landscape. 

Our employees now enjoy secure, uninterrupted access to vital resources from anywhere. It has not only improved our overall productivity but also instilled confidence in our team. However, it's crucial to emphasize that achieving these benefits necessitates careful configuration and ongoing management to ensure optimal performance and security.

The feature I find most valuable in Perimeter 81 is its user-friendly interface and very quick connection establishment feature. Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful. It simplifies the management of multiple users and devices, making administrative tasks efficient and straightforward. This ease of use has saved our IT team time and effort, allowing us to focus on more strategic aspects of network security and management. 

The intuitive design and straightforward controls have significantly contributed to a smoother user experience within our organization, ultimately enhancing our productivity and overall satisfaction with the service.

In terms of improvement, Perimeter 81 could enhance its reporting and analytics capabilities to provide more detailed insights into network activity. 

Additionally, expanding integration options with a broader range of third-party tools would be beneficial for seamless compatibility with various existing systems.

As for additional features in the next release, it would be great to see advanced threat detection and response capabilities integrated into the platform. This would further enhance security by proactively identifying and mitigating potential threats. 

Additionally, improved mobile device management features and more comprehensive user behavior analytics would be valuable additions to meet evolving cybersecurity needs.

I've used the solution for a couple of months.

Perimeter 81 has demonstrated remarkable stability throughout our usage. We've experienced minimal downtime or disruptions in our network connectivity. 

The solution has consistently delivered reliable and secure access to resources, even during peak usage periods or when facing potential network threats. This stability has instilled confidence in our team, knowing that we can depend on Perimeter 81 to maintain a secure and stable network environment. 

Overall, we've been highly satisfied with the solution's stability and its ability to provide uninterrupted service to our organization.

The scalability of Perimeter 81 is quite impressive. It offers flexibility to adapt to the evolving needs of our organization. 

We've easily scaled up the number of users and devices as our team has grown, and the solution has seamlessly accommodated these changes without compromising performance or security. This scalability is particularly valuable for businesses with dynamic workforces and changing network demands. 

Perimeter 81's ability to efficiently scale resources has been a key asset in ensuring the continued reliability of our network security infrastructure.

Our experience with Perimeter 81's customer service and support has been highly positive. They have been responsive and attentive to our needs, promptly addressing any inquiries or issues that have arisen. 

Overall, their customer service and support have been exceptional.

Positive

I didn't previously use a different solution before adopting Perimeter 81. I chose Perimeter 81 as the initial network security solution due to its reputation for user-friendliness, robust security features, and seamless support for remote work. It aligned perfectly with our needs from the start, so there was no need for a switch from a previous solution.

The initial setup of Perimeter 81 was straightforward for basic deployment but became more complex when customizing security policies and integrating with our existing network infrastructure.

We implemented Perimeter 81 with the assistance of a vendor team. Their level of expertise was excellent, and they provided valuable guidance throughout the deployment process.

In our case, the ROI from implementing Perimeter 81 has been substantial. We've seen a reduction in security incidents and associated costs, improved productivity due to secure remote work capabilities, and significant cost savings by reducing the need for employees to travel to the office. 

Perimeter 81 has delivered a positive and measurable return on our investment in terms of enhanced security, productivity, and cost-effectiveness.

It's essential to consider the organization's specific requirements and budget. Here are some general recommendations:

1. Evaluate your needs
2. Understand pricing models
3. Request a quote
4. Compare competing prices
5. Factor in support and maintenance
6. Demo/trial period
7. Negotiate
   

Before selecting Perimeter 81, we conducted a thorough evaluation of several other network security solutions. Some of the options we considered included Cisco AnyConnect, Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect, and Fortinet FortiClient. 

We assessed these options based on factors such as security features, ease of deployment, scalability, user-friendliness, and cost-effectiveness. Ultimately, Perimeter 81 emerged as the best fit for our organization's specific needs and requirements, especially in the context of enabling secure remote work for our geographically dispersed team.

Perimeter 81 is a valuable tool for network security and remote work, but user training is key to its effectiveness as it comes with many features and might be overwhelming for new users. 

Users should keep the software up-to-date and utilize the provided support. Emphasize cybersecurity best practices, consider integration with other tools, and maintain a feedback loop with the Perimeter 81 team. 

Regular audits and compliance checks are important, and users must continually evaluate the solution's value in meeting evolving security and remote work needs.

Customers employ Check Point Diagnostics for their multi-branch solutions. They're also using Foundation Firewall with Blade Security and Check Point Harmony Connect. Their primary focus is on prevention, particularly in terms of access to ServiceEdge. This approach ensures the safety of packets and applications for our IT customers. Consequently, we are investing in quality hardware to support these secure solutions.

Our investment in quality hardware has proven to provide a better customer experience. They heavily rely on Check Point Firewall and Check Point SaaS Connect to safeguard their networks from external threats and attacks.

They should work towards the WAN intergration.

A cloud service that unifies multiple network security products and deploys within minutes.

Check Point has proven to be an exceptionally stable solution. We've been deploying these devices to our customers since around 2013-2014, and during this period, we haven't received any RMA requests or hardware-related field requests from our customers. There have been no reported issues or failures on the customer side. From our perspective, Check Point devices are known for their robustness and granularity in the market. When it comes to stability, we would rate Check Point ten out of ten.

The solution is very scalable, so I would rate it 10 out of 10.

The quality of service can vary depending on your SLA (Service Level Agreement) and the specific services you receive from Check Point. In our case, we've had a positive experience. Depending on the level of support, such as 24/7 availability, we've consistently received responses within the agreed SLA timeframe. This has been a satisfactory aspect of our service with Check Point.

Positive

We've determined the most optimal days for MAC setups at our customers' locations. We rely on our in-house experts rather than seeking assistance from Check Point's site. Our expert team takes charge of ticket management and ensures smooth customer implementations. To date, we've successfully deployed this solution for numerous customers, including approximately 2,500 customers with endpoints and over 50 branch locations. One noteworthy customer in the software industry, known as SIM Contact Modules, also received our support for their deployment needs.We've successfully implemented various security measures, including data protection, cloud DLP (Data Loss Prevention), granular policy enforcement, and Jira integration. Additionally, we've set up sandboxing and connected to Azure for protection against phishing and malware threats. Throughout this deployment, we encountered some minor issues, but overall, managing and configuring the deployment process was relatively straightforward. It takes almost one day. 

It's very easy to set up it and I would rate it 9 out of 10.

The pricing of Check Point is relatively high when compared to other competitors like Palo Alto and Fortinet. While Palo Alto may be on the higher side in terms of cost, Check Point's pricing is similar to that of Fortinet. In some cases, Check Point offers better value for the features it provides. We initially considered other options but ultimately decided to purchase hardware that came with three years of iOS. This approach eliminated the need for any additional costs associated with Check Point.

I would rate it 10 out of 10.

We will suggest the Check Point solution to customers and other partners. This way, they can obtain a comprehensive solution in one package, addressing all their needs. Whether it's deploying data with Jira, setting up cluster attacks, or utilizing various features through a single connection, this approach ensures customer satisfaction and contributes to our business success.

I would rate it 9 out of 10. 

One use case of SASE is for a partner customer who needs a secure and fast connection for their employees to access the final customer's data center and cloud. Green protection and security measures enable access to all information, including the data center's applications and networks.

Harmony SASE can prevent threats, provide global network protection, and manage API evaluations of user posture. Its software solution also ensures connectivity and protects against NSF filtering.

Check Point complements our more robust solution with Harmony SASE. This solution allows me to see Harmony SASE as an additional layer of security. It profiles security for users connecting remotely, whether working from another branch, a hotel, or an airport. In this case, we needed to protect these connections quickly, so we deployed it as the fastest solution for this customer.

There is a hefty cost, but it has excellent coverage. We need SASE management for five websites, including streamlining, logging, and monitoring. The solution offers the final customer three cloud coverage options and an excellent price point. Our competitors are Palo Alto, Cisco, Symantec, and Solar.

If the dashboard allows the PMS administrator to easily and quickly deploy configurations, it will facilitate the solution's faster deployment.

It is stable. It brings strong stability to the program, including updates to protect against new ransomware attacks.

Check Point's support is on par with the best in the market. Check Point Harmony SASE is a leading solution in both the local and global markets.

Positive

Unlike Cisco, Microsoft Azure, and similar solutions, SASE Insight offers limited visibility. It is slow in detecting and reacting to threats at the point of entry in real-time. Microsoft’s solution is focused on protection but doesn’t provide comprehensive security management. Although it deploys easily, Microsoft’s approach to security isn’t sufficient for robust threat prevention, especially against ransomware. Check Point's Harmony SASE is a more effective solution as it includes several advanced tools and sandboxing capabilities for thorough threat prevention and management.

The deployment is easy, but financial customers must have a comprehensive protection solution. Check Point's Harmony provides complex protection with its firewalls and other features.

The return of the SASE web addresses the void in the quality of information protection clients have in their employment. We can check the information, ensuring higher value and effective deployment, ultimately benefiting us. It is crucial to verify the quantum of protection provided and the conditions and access to private information. 

Harmony SASE may not be the cheapest solution but offers more value. It provides enhanced capabilities and features that justify its cost. We are conducting several trials with the new rigs in the silver packs to evaluate their effectiveness.

I recommend Check Point's solution, including various verticals like Quantum, CloudGuard, and Harmony. Harmony SASE, in particular, covers mobile endpoints, email, and collaboration. It's known for easy and fast deployment, as well as efficient administration through the portal. This solution provides organizations with real-time protection and is considered one of the best in the market.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.