Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We are primarily on-premise. We also use Azure for cloud services, mostly for VPN. We use it as the active directory to authorize access to the VPN, which is helpful. 

However, as a healthcare organization in Germany, it is very challenging to get cloud solutions like CloudGuard approved. Cloud solutions must be located in Germany or Frankfurt, where all the data centers are situated. This requirement makes it somewhat difficult, however, otherwise, it is manageable.

We have a lot of audits in the healthcare industry and Check Point has become an industry standard.

One aspect I appreciate is that it is not overly complicated. Many solutions are sometimes difficult to set up. Check Point has been very straightforward. Especially in the last one to two years, it has become easier to manage with each patch. I have several coworkers who have used it for a long time, and they all mentioned that it was much more difficult to use or update five years ago. It has become less complex to use yet more complex in terms of infrastructure. 

Check Point offers unified security management across hybrids, clouds, as well as on on-premise. We have Azure for cloud, however it is mostly for VPN. We have the active directory to get to authorize yourself into the VPN. CloudGuard helps with that. As a healthcare organization in Germany, it's very difficult to get approval for clouds. If you want to have the cloud approved, it has to be in Germany or in Frankfurt where all the data centers are. That makes it a little bit difficult to be on cloud vs on-prem. Other than that, it's fine.

I honestly do not know how it can be improved anymore. There are probably people with more knowledge or experience who could suggest improvements. Most of the solutions we have used have been straightforward and effective. 

Occasionally, there is a strange bug, however, we just contact Check Point for a hotfix if we are a significant client. And since that is our situation, the solution works. 

There might be a possibility for Check Point to offer more training opportunities for users to get to know the solution better, perhaps through courses or similar resources. However, it depends on our company's arrangements with Check Point. In our case, we have a vendor involved. Everything we do with Check Point must go through the vendor first, which is somewhat inconvenient. It would be easier to deal with Check Point directly, however, it depends on the vendor. 

There is a wealth of material available online for those technically inclined. In this fast-paced industry, we must continue learning. Courses or online meetings, like Zoom or Teams sessions, for one or two hours each week, would be helpful. 

Despite using it for a long time, there are always new features. For example, just last week, I discovered a new feature that had been in the software for years yet it was not visible due to its placement behind multiple menus. Teaching sessions would be beneficial, yet it is our responsibility to learn, so we cannot entirely rely on Check Point.

We have been using Check Point for at least ten years now. Our organization has used it for that long. It's a healthcare system with 130 hospitals. 

The solution is stable. Most Check Point solutions are stable.

Since we are primarily using Azure, scalability is not currently a concern. It could become relevant in the future, but as a healthcare organization, transitioning to the cloud is challenging, especially in Germany.

Customer service depends on the issue. Sometimes, there are bugs, and we have to wait for a customized patch. For instance, we had a random bug where CPU usage spiked inexplicably, preventing access to the appliances. Restarting resolved the issue, but the cause remains unknown. 

Typically, we deal with our partner and they advise us to create a Check Point ticket. It raises the question of why we have a partner. I do not deal with customer support often, however, if I report a bug, it is resolved within a month or two. It is not usually a critical bug, just minor issues that prompt curiosity.

Positive

90% to 95% of our infrastructure is on-premises in order to connect it to the cloud. 

The deployment was handled by someone else. I simply work with it. 

The point of Check Point isn't necessarily to gain an ROI. A company just has to pay the price. You don't get money out of it. 

I'm not directly aware of the pricing. Most Check Point solutions are costly, however, they are the industry standard, so the cost is necessary. Especially in a healthcare organization, skimping on IT security is inadvisable. Losing patient data could cost four percent of an organization's annual revenue. 

For an organization with twenty billion euros in revenue, four percent is significant. Also, we have limited flexibility with licensing, though we sometimes receive better prices through vendors. The company likely paid over thirty million euros to Check Point. However, the technology ensures a high-security standard. 

Many large German companies also use Check Point.

I'm unsure if the company has evaluated other options. 

I have never been involved in the decision to use this solution; I am just the end user.

Flagger Network Security and Check Point work effectively. I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

On-premises

Microsoft Azure

The use depends on the case. I have many customers. Right now, I have one customer, and it's a collection of these functions. The basic ones involve making numerous rules in normal network security. I can protect my emails and files. If someone from my company tries to upload something from the Internet, and I don't know if it’s sensitive, this can help protect my data.

It allows us to make a lot of rules around network security. It helps us protect emails and files. We have the power to protect our data.

There's a whole range of functions that make up prevention against malware and everything. It’s not just one aspect that garners my attention - the whole application is being used to defend. Even as the complexity increases, it is maintained at the same level. And with increasing complexity, I become more efficient, so I have to spend at least the same amount of time.

CloudGuard Network Security provides our customers with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premise.

In terms of security operations, it helps people spend less time. Integrations make work more efficient.

So far, it's helped our companies to reduce organizational risk by 99%.

We're very confident in the secure cloud deployments and migrations. We feel more safe. It's reliable and it helps avoid mistakes. 

Everything is in one place, and it seems it's easier to use than before. Making it even easier is a good way to improve it more. When it's easier to use, there are fewer mistakes.

I have used the Check Point product for around six years now. 

Stability is okay. I am not aware of any potential stability issues. Check Point is one of the best vendors in this regard.

Performance scalability is good. For my customers, they can add what they want. This is what customers want: the options to get the scalability they need. We simply need to manage the traffic accordingly.

Every experience is different. Every ticket is different, and sometimes it's a little bit painful to pinpoint problems. Sometimes I have a quick solution. Sometimes I am angry, and sometimes I am okay with it.

Neutral

I have worked with Fortinet, however, not with integration into the cloud; it was on-premises solutions. So, I am not sure if I can compare the two, since it's different when it's on the cloud. 

My understanding is the initial setup should be easy. 

The licensing is a bit expensive. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

On-premises

My primary use case is for the protection of environments that are in the cloud and multiple branches and areas that are in the layout of all the systems.

This solution helped us migrate to cloud environments from environments that were on premises. It helped us implement protection for our systems. The fact that it is part of Check Point's overall protection system within some kind of central management system allows us to easily manage and gain visibility on everything that happens in the organization.

The protection is at a very good level. There's a very high catch rate. It has good flexibility in operating and implementing the system.

Protection is valuable to me because security is the most important aspect. At the end of the day we are looking for what will give us the answer at the best level.

It is easy to implement, and it has a lot of flexibility compared to other systems you have in the organization. In the end, this is a parameter that, in my eyes, is very central.

In the end, it saves time. It's all in one place and you can quickly see how you're doing with the cloud environment. It just makes things easier and helps on a daily basis because it optimizes the understanding of what we have. 

Instead of logging into the system by yourself and starting to check, there's another management system that sees logs. It examines the data daily, and it creates flexibility regarding what we want to investigate. It is much easier for everything to be in the same management and not scattered in all sorts of different places.

Check Point helped me a lot to know that I have a solution that is stable and answers my needs. It really gave me the confidence to move forward with the whole migration to the cloud. It was very helpful.

When I moved to the cloud, I looked at Check Point's solution and as soon as it suited me, I bought it. We chose CheckPoint right away, it was our go-to choice.

From my point of view and my needs, I don't see room for improvement. In my opinion, the more it has support for more environments and the more integration there is with wider areas, not only in Check Point's systems, but also with other systems, then I think it will allow access to more customers which is not specifically my case, but in principle the wider the system, the more it will be able to appeal to a larger audience; integration with other manufacturers in other words.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for two years.

The platform is very good in terms of stability. We never encountered any issue with it.

Scalability is very good.

Support is very good. The response time is good and fast, and they are also very professional.

Positive

I had help from a Check Point CS and it all went smoothly. There was only one person from Check Point who was in constant communication with us and provided us service in installing the solution, my experience with him was very good.

After running a test against what alternatives exist in the market and seeing what they offer, this is the solution that fits perfectly into our budget. This is a very important parameter for us, and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security did so.

The price was really good, that's the main reason we chose it. In addition, the licensing model was very simple.

I appreciate the cloud network security. I find it to be very effective, and I am pleased with securing cloud deployments.

I would rate CloudGuard Network Security an eight out of ten. There's always room for improvement. It could become a 10 if they had more accessibility to other platforms. Overall, it is a good product.

On-premises

I am tasked with deploying firewalls in Azure Cloud, AWS, and VMware. This involves setting up virtual machines in VMware and is essentially focused on these tasks.

It does a great job protecting the clouds.

The important point is that the solution is integrated into our management system (if they already have Check Point). It's just one more gateway to add. We have it on Azure and others. The advantage lies in the integration within our existing ecosystem, which is amazing.

It's good at identifying threats and on par with the market - at least, in comparison to the others we work with. 

We have confidence in secure cloud deployments and integrations. It's important to have confidence. Even if nothing happens, you are protected, You never know when bad luck will happen. There are some public cases that were missing network security on the cloud, and they were affected. It's a must-have, like an insurance policy. 

The license model could be simpler. We have some issues with the license since it tries to be simple, and yet in some cases, it tends to be complex. Apart from that, I do not recall any other issues.

I have been using the solution for roughly four years.

The stability is generally good. Sometimes there are issues we do not understand, especially with older features. Outside of that, the stability is good. It could be better. For instance, when we are working on a release and do an upgrade, we start experiencing unexpected issues. New features might have problems, however, for existing ones, we expect the same level of functionality as before.

We do not use scalability. I do not have much experience with auto scaling, however, it could be beneficial. Usually, our customers use a model that involves bringing their own licenses with static gateways, not scaling out.

Check Point support has its ups and downs. Sometimes, the support is good, and other times, we are a bit desperate. Overall, I would say the customer service is good, not marvellous. There are some challenges.

Positive

As integrators, we also work with other solutions. The main difference is we can take advantage of integrative management. If you already have an environment with Check Point, it's easy and an advantage. 

We typically deploy to the cloud. We create an implementation strategy with our clients. 

Usually, the customer is very savvy and knows what they want. We provide some advice, however, usually, they have their own ideas on what to do and when to do it.

It is important to have this solution because even if nothing happens, you are not protected without it. You never know when bad luck might knock at your door. 

I rate it eight out of ten. 

You need to have some kind of protection in the cloud. Maybe the native protection is enough, maybe it is not. Having protection gives more confidence in the solution. 

Hybrid Cloud

Other

I normally use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to protect cloud workloads and control traffic between cloud resources. It is mostly for enforcing segmentation and managing security policies across different cloud environments.

A recent example of how I use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to enforce segmentation or manage policies was when we deployed a new application tier in the cloud. I used CloudGuard to segment it from the rest of the environment and apply stricter threat prevention rules.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is deployed in the public cloud setup in my case.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security does provide unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premises. Having policies and visibility centralized in one place makes operations much smoother. Instead of managing separate rule sets for cloud and on-premises, I can apply consistent policies across both and see all traffic flows in a single dashboard. That cuts down on configuration risk and makes troubleshooting faster.

I do utilize Check Point CloudGuard Network Security alongside other Check Point products. In my case, I use it alongside Quantum and Harmony Endpoint.

The best features in Check Point CloudGuard Network Security are the centralized cloud-native policy management, strong threat prevention for cloud traffic, and automatic discovery of cloud assets.

The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security in my day-to-day work is the centralized cloud-native policy management. I can control all the clouds, which is very beneficial.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has helped us reduce misconfigurations and improve how quickly we can secure new cloud workloads. We have also had fewer issues with unexpected traffic because the visibility tools make it easier to spot problems.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has helped me reduce my organizational risk. The clear visibility into cloud traffic and the automatic adaptation to cloud changes reduced the chance of misconfigurations, which were one of our biggest risks. The number of policy-related issues we had to fix dropped noticeably once we started using it.

It has increased my confidence in secure cloud deployments and migrations quite a bit. Knowing that policy adjusts automatically when new resources come online makes migration less stressful. The consistent visibility across environments also helps because I can verify traffic flows.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security could be improved with faster policy propagation across large multi-cloud environments and more intuitive dashboards for complex rule sets.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for about one year and a half.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is stable.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security scales well as our cloud footprint grows. It handled adding more workloads and environments without major issues.

The customer support for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very good and very helpful, but I think it could be better on higher complexity issues.

Negative

We used a mix of native cloud controls and some older firewall setups before Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. We switched because they did not give us the same level of unified visibility or consistent policies across environments.

Securing a new workload with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security now could take a few hours before because I had to map out network paths and build policies manually. Now, it usually takes under an hour. The automatic asset discovery and clear visibility shave off a good chunk of the setup time.

I purchased Check Point CloudGuard Network Security through the AWS Marketplace.

I cannot give a percentage for money, but we have seen a return mainly through time savings and fewer configuration-related issues with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

I have evaluated solutions that compete with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. We evaluated solutions from Palo Alto Networks, Prisma Cloud, and also Azure. However, AWS with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security was much easier to implement, and that is why we prefer it.

We did evaluate other options before choosing Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. The main alternatives we evaluated were Palo Alto's Prisma Cloud and some of the native security tools from Azure. They work for certain use cases, but Check Point CloudGuard Network Security gave us a stronger unified policy management.

The core security features of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security work really well, but a few usability areas hold it back: the policy propagation speed and parts of the interface. I would give Check Point CloudGuard Network Security a rating of seven out of ten.

I would advise others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to first plan ahead. I recommend starting with a small pilot across one or two tiers, defining policy and segmentation baselines upfront.

The main use cases for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security are to address the threats that are currently occurring, and it automates the network security while also providing rapid deployment. The automations are particularly effective in Check Point, offering all the cool features available.

The best features in Check Point CloudGuard Network Security include the prevention it provides to my organization via automated engines, unified security management across hybrid clouds, a complete security framework, and a clean and clear dashboard.

The main benefits that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security brings to the table include clean dashboards, clarity of architecture in my organization regarding what applications and traffic passes through, firewall and threat prevention, and integration with tools like Terraform, Cloud Formation, Kubernetes, and others.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid clouds and on-premises deployments.

The unified security management provided by Check Point CloudGuard Network Security affects my security operations by preventing many attacks, ensuring compliance, and improving the governance aspect. The automation is very good in that segment, and the cloud adapts to any changes or integrations very well. Overall, it is fantastic.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is working well currently. I do not think much needs to be improved, but while loading the console, it is a little bit lacking sometimes as it gets stuck, and we have to refresh it again. That part needs to be reduced.

I have been working with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for two years.

Apart from the console that I mentioned, I have not faced any other crashes, downtimes, performance issues, or stability issues with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. The website has never crashed; there is just slowness, and that is all.

The scalability aspect of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very good; it is perfect and easy to scale up and scale out.

Since I have not escalated any questions regarding Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to the Check Point team, I cannot say much, but whenever I tag a ticket, the response is very good, so there are no issues with that.

Negative

I have not evaluated any other options or solutions available in the market before choosing Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

The deployment process of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security was straightforward since it was a cloud-based product. We partnered for the initial setup, and they have been working for the past seven years. They have experienced engineers, and they completed it smoothly; there were no complexities in terms of deployment.

My experience onboarding Check Point CloudGuard Network Security was very good. I was part of it, and now I also manage it. There was nothing complex; the prerequisites were very clear from the partners and Check Point. The communication was good, and everything was executed perfectly.

For the sake of this review, we have not integrated any products with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security yet because we are still in trial mode. We do have some challenges within the partner, and we are involved with a partner, so we are trying to integrate some applications. I do not know what those applications are because they have not disclosed them yet, as it involves a bank customer and disclosures happen only after everything is verified. We are facing some challenges, but we have a partner who is excellently coordinating with us, so that is not an issue.

Since I have been working for the past two years, a lot of risk has been reduced, but I cannot quantify the exact count. We do have reports that we provide to the management department on a weekly basis to verify and review, and it has been wonderful.

Although I do not know much about the pricing or setup costs, Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very cost-effective. If you want to secure your organization completely from all ends against attacks like ransomware or zero-day attacks, you definitely have to pay a particular price. If it is securing my organization, it is definitely cost-effective, but all business deals are presented by higher management based on that.

I have not used or evaluated other solutions that compete with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, but I have been working on application controls, DLPs, and EDRs. Those technologies are what I know and work on.

Apart from Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, I have not worked on any other SD-WAN or Cloud and Data Center security products.

The issues with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security stem from the bank sector itself. In the bank sector, they mostly use customized ports, and we need certain applications that are handled by different departments. We used to take approvals for a single port, and for different customized ports, we need different approvals. Management and IT are getting stuck, but that will get sorted out soon.

I have not faced any issues, so I cannot comment on the impact that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has had on the confidence in secure cloud deployments and migrations.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security definitely helps when it comes to cloud deployments and migrations, and I feel it reduces the risk. I can deploy application control, URL filtering, and we also have an antivirus that provides a perfect security posture in my organization. It also blocks zero-day malware and ransomware, making it a very big impact on my organization and very supportive.

As of now, nothing needs to be added to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, but in case there is anything in the roadmap, I would definitely love to try that particular segment.

I would suggest to any organization considering Check Point CloudGuard Network Security that they should try it. They will also get clarity on their own organization's security implementation, and they can have good clarity on that. My overall rating for this review is 9 out of 10.

Our end customer is using Azure to host a few applications in the cloud, and we utilize CloudGuard Network Security to secure those assets.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid-clouds as well as on-prem. Our customer is also using Check Point on-premises, so we have one place to create all of our policies. It is a lot easier than doing it at different places. We have the same policy in different clouds and on-premises. That is a great thing. There is a seamless experience and the same management. That is a great advantage over using Azure's native firewall.

CloudGuard Network Security has helped reduce our organizational risk by about 15%. That is because of the ease of working with one big policy that spans the entire organization.

With CloudGuard Network Security, we get a unified solution. It does not matter if we are on AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. The migration with Scale Set is nice to work with. It is very easy to upgrade and so on.

Scale Set is highly beneficial. It is easy to upgrade and maintain. 

It is pretty great in all aspects, but the integration could be easier, especially with Scale Set and related features. It was somewhat challenging a few years ago to set it up, but once completed, it worked well. Easier integration with on-premises solutions could be beneficial.

I have used the solution for about three years.

The track record is excellent, with nothing to complain about.

The scalability is great.

Their support is great. We get quick responses. The customer support consists of very talented people. They are nice to work with.

Positive

I have used Azure Firewall. I have not extensively worked on AWS. In Sweden, our focus is primarily on Azure.

We went with CloudGuard because we have been working with Check Point products for quite some time. It is an easy choice. We are already familiar with on-premises network security, so choosing the same in the cloud is a big benefit.

Maintaining the policy is not difficult at all with CloudGuard. In fact, it is easier compared to Azure Firewall, which seems a few years behind Check Point. The solution is effective for utilizing all security features Check Point provides. Although I have not used all CloudGuard features yet, its network security is akin to an on-premises firewall.

We have a CloudGuard in the cloud, and we use normal quantum gateways.

It was not as simple as on-premises, but there were good guides on how to do it, so we managed in the end.

We are the integrator in this case. We managed the implementation for one of the end customers. However, we had support from local Check Point representatives.

The main return on investment has been in the time spent working with the solution. Since everything is unified in both cloud and on-premises environments, troubleshooting is faster.

It has saved about 50% of the time. If we had two solutions, we would have to troubleshoot two solutions.

Handling costs is not my department. Licensing has been quite acceptable. It is a bit easier now, but when I began working with CloudGuard, it was a bit too technical.

My overall product rating is a nine out of ten. A slightly easier setup process would be great. Check Point is performing well. The cloud is evolving rapidly, and Check Point is keeping up efficiently. 

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I have implemented the solution for customers at about three or four different companies now. I primarily use it for general Cloud Security to protect Azure. In most cases, it has always been about securing Azure.

For me, Checkpoint in general is characterized by the ease of day-to-day use, management, log review, and all that. This is a big plus because I can execute these tasks effectively through the Cloud, which is the biggest point for me. It is a significant improvement over Azure's security features, providing enhanced security when Checkpoint is implemented. This is especially beneficial nowadays, as businesses are working with fewer people who need to accomplish more tasks.

In my experience, the failover times are a bit poor during an HA failover in the Cloud. However, this also depends on API calls in Azure, so there is not much I can do there. If there is something I could improve, it would be this aspect.

I would say that I have used Network Security for about two years.

The first few setups are always a bit uncertain, like wondering what is going to happen. The documentation is great, but the problem with Cloud technologies is that it changes all the time, leading to outdated documentation. It can be a bit challenging in the beginning, but once I get used to it, the process is acceptable.

The stability is good, apart from the failover I mentioned before, which takes a bit of time. Again, it is not really Checkpoint's fault; it is just due to Cloud architecture. Overall, stability is good, and upgrades are proceeding well.

Scalability offers two solutions: the gateway and the load balancer setup. The load balancer setup is fantastic. If I need anything, it spins up or spins down and works smoothly. When I adopted it around three years ago, I deployed clusters in the Cloud with two firewalls in HA, but the failover was not ideal. Depending on the scenario, I need to choose the right solution.

Technical support has greatly improved over the last couple of years. It used to be less effective, but now it is in a good state. Also, interactions with salespeople from Checkpoint are going well. I have talked with Palo Alto support as well, and Checkpoint is way better.

Neutral

I just started at the company I am working for now, but my previous customer used Palo Alto. They have the same products, of course, but the usability is not the same. It is stable and good, but the usability is not equivalent.

I use multiple approaches. First, I create an architectural design and check with their Cloud team to see their implementation of their environment. Depending on that, I proceed accordingly. It is really customer-based.

For us, it is not really applicable since we sell it and that is the end of it. However, the feedback from customers has been positive. It performs well, effectively doing its job without slowing down and stopping threats. I think the customer is also receiving a significant return on investment from the solution.

The most significant advantage for a day-to-day user like me is the logs. In Palo Alto, I need to manage brackets and everything, and issues arise if something is spaced incorrectly. In Checkpoint, I can input whatever I need and get the required results. This is a major win in troubleshooting. Logging is okay on both platforms, but if I know exactly what to type in Palo Alto, it is manageable. However, they are quite similar without too big a difference. For email security, Checkpoint offers a big advantage, but that is unrelated to Network Security.

I would give it a solid eight. This is quite a good score in my opinion. Absolutely. I rate the overall solution an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I am using a Public Cloud deployment model.

I use Microsoft Azure as the cloud provider.