Check Point NGFW Reviews

For Check Point, the main cases are just perimeter security, network security, basically detecting threats on the network, antivirus, application control, visibility, login, and data threat prevention.

I like the GUI. In terms of functionality, it used to be the detection capability. Check Point has good security intelligence, which helps detect threats. They have the historical background to do that. But now, Fortinet is a bit better. 

A lot of things need to be improved in Check Point NGFW. One, their support team isn't very efficient and useful. 

The solution itself isn't easy to learn, making it hard for support to provide solutions. The design makes it so pockets (specific teams) have to work together when there's an issue, which creates a mess.

Also, Check Point lacks competitive capabilities like SD-WAN and CGM app integration. And visibility needs improvement. For example, Fortinet shows all connected devices with IP addresses, MAC addresses, and sometimes usernames. More granular detail is crucial for security.

So support efficiency, visibility, and adding competitive capabilities are key areas for improvement.

I have been with Check Point for a very long time. So, it has been almost six years.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. There is room for improvement here. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. My customers are mostly medium-sized businesses, but my clientele also includes enterprises.

There is room for improvement in the customer service and support. 

Neutral

I'm heavily biased towards Fortinet. Check Point is a direct competitor, so from my experience, it's a decent firewall. There are strong points and weak points, but Fortinet is superior for various reasons.

The initial setup is really straightforward. The GUI is very good. However, the issue I have is with the stability. In terms of simplicity, I don't consider Check Point to be a straightforward solution. Another point to mention is my experience in planning within customer environments. The outcomes are not always as expected. 

For instance, when setting up Check Point firewall and flat policies, the policies didn't take effect immediately. There was a situation where the policies took effect after about two hours. Such instances were mind-boggling. Regarding VPN issues, when implementing IP protection between Check Point and other vendors, remote access can be challenging.

In Nigeria, it's predominantly on-premises. Many organizations are moving towards cloud, but many others use a hybrid approach, both on-premises and in the cloud. 

A few are using Check Point in the cloud, but most test with Fortinet due to easier integration with public cloud providers like Microsoft. Public cloud vendors also have their own firewalls, like Microsoft and AWS. In terms of adoption, Check Point is behind in cloud adoption in Nigeria.

Overall, the process is very fast and depends on the type of deployment. For example, replacing a Cisco firewall with Check Point requires converting policies, which can take quite a while, depending on the size of the policy base. In my personal experience, setting up Check Point was very quick.

It's reasonably priced, but competitors offer much cheaper options. It's market-related, so the pricing makes sense for what Check Point offers.

My recommendation is to consider Fortinet as an alternative. Overall, I'd rate it a seven out of ten. There's room for improvement, especially since Check Point doesn't seem too focused on our region. 

In Nigeria, procuring the firewall and bundled services like technical account management and professional services can be challenging. The service delivery is not as efficient as one would expect, which wouldn't be the case for a European customer.

The primary use case is to enhance security by safeguarding the internet connection for both servers and users.

Its greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, making it exceptionally suitable and reliable for managing gateways.

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.

I have been working with it for two years.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability abilities eight out of ten.

Seeking solutions from them can be quite challenging and often takes a while, which then impacts our workload. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have some experience with Juniper, WatchGuard, Cisco, and Fortinet.

The initial setup is relatively complex.

Deployment duration varies based on the customer's specific conditions. On average, an installation might take around twenty minutes.

The best solutions tend to come with a higher price tag. If something is inexpensive, it often implies a compromise in quality. The solution is indeed costly. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I usually apply Check Point to protect my customer's environment as a main solution boundary gateway, DMZ gateway, LAN gateway, or VPN site-to-site with other Check Point appliances and other vendors. I do a Harmony Endpoint full integration. I use other tools such as threat prevention blades (like IPS and IDS), anti-virus, anti-bot, anti-malware, and the Sandblast solution.

I haven't had any data leaks or vulnerability situations. The NGFW has been working as it should! It's performing well and offers great security for me and my customers by protecting the environment. Administrators can easily follow and monitor security events, or the health status of the environment or appliance using Smarteview, SmartEvent, and the monitoring blade. We can look at CPU usage, disk space, and traffic and can see user history in real-time. 

The threat extraction is the most valuable aspect. It protects the final user and prevents them from falling into the trap of infected files. When a file needs to be downloaded by a machine user, this solution analyzes the file at the same time to send to the user a clean version of this file. If not infected, the real version is available. The threat emulation can scan the computer applications searching for malicious activities and block them according to policy.

It could be easier to manage the licenses on blades and contracts. If you have a large environment it will take too much time for your team to verify if all the licenses and contracts are correct and work well. Although it is possible to manage licenses using SmartUpate and SmartConsole, if there are issues, you can only fix them using an expert shell. Simplifying the process would help simplify the daily tasks of administrators.  

I've been using the solution for two years.

Technical support works well.

Positive

NGFW is not a cheap solution, however, it does guarantee security. If the goal is to protect assets, using NGFW by Check Point helps immensely.

I use this in my company environment. I did not evaluate other options. 

I use the solution in my company since the solution serves as a firewall and functions on a DMZ network while also providing public-facing services. I serve my company's customers as a firewall administrator.

My company's customers have benefited from the solution's performance, especially when dealing with a huge amount of traffic. Check Point is a well-known name in the security industry that opts for functionalities like signature-based detection and beyond.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the Quantum Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). I also like the solution's functionality, like autonomous threat prevention.

The complexity involved in the solution's initial setup phase and deployment process is an area of concern where improvement is required.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for two years. I work as the solution's integrator. Speaking about the version, I use Check Point Quantum 6400 Next Generation Firewalls.

So far, I haven't faced any issues related to the solution's stability.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

If I take into consideration my company's customers who use the solution, then I would have to say that there are around 300 to 400 users.

I have availed the services provided by the solution's technical support. My company engages with the solution's local partner to avail the services provided by Check Point's technical support team.

Compared to Palo Alto and Fortinet, Check Point provides good internal performance, especially for big-scale enterprises and entities, making it a tool that is not just suitable for SMEs or mid-sized companies. Check Point is, however, pricier than other solutions.

The initial setup of Check Point NGFW is quite complex. When it comes to the product's setup phase, the engineer should understand the product, and instead of understanding the firewall, it is important to know how to manage or be an admin.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution's deployment is complex.

My company's customers have seen a return on investment from the use of Check Point NGFW.

I rate the pricing of Check Point NGFW a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is high price, and ten is low price.

I take care of the solution's maintenance part, and I feel that it is a straightforward process.

Check Point NGFW is good for big companies.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for our core firewall and also for VPN.

It can be managed by many people. I have a team, and any of them can manage this firewall and make some changes. All the changes are combined into one policy.

Its usability is the best for me. As compared to Palo Alto, Juniper, or Cisco firewalls, Check Point firewall has the best user interface for management, reading logs, looking for some objects, and looking for policies.

It's expensive.

We have been using this solution for more than 15 years.

It's stable.

I don't know about its scalability because I haven't had to scale. I have a flat traffic rate.

I have 500 users. It's deployed across two data centers.

I contacted them sometimes but not very often. It was a good experience. I have contacts with the engineers in Check Point. They provide the right solution every time. I also use the Check Point support portal. They have many descriptions and solutions for some of the problems.

I have previously used Palo Alto, Juniper, and Cisco. Check Point NGFW is better than all of them. 

I changed from Cisco ASA. It was a long time ago. Cisco ASA was an old technology, whereas Check Point NGFW has better performance and better knowledge about applications.

It was easy for me because I have many years of experience. I could see its benefits within two or three months of deployment.

In terms of maintenance, it requires normal maintenance. Its maintenance is similar to other devices.

It's expensive, but its price is reasonable looking at its functionality and power.

Try many solutions and then choose the best one for you.

I'd rate Check Point NGFW a ten out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is a solid, up-to-date solution that helps protect the network infrastructure, resolving unauthorized access, attacks, and access to the infrastructure by cyber attackers.

We've been pleased to use Check Point's security tool.

To shield our perimeter, we decided to acquire a security manufacturer that would provide its gateway security applications both on-premise and in Microsoft Azure, for which Check Point, with its GW tool, fulfilled what was required to improve perimeter security.

Check Point NGFW gives us granular security with its intuitive policies, application control, monitoring, logs, and a wide range of blades that can be purchased and included in this tool, providing a more integrated and centralized security to improve infrastructure protection.

With this, we can use S2S VPNs to communicate with other sites. We can monitor and protect with Check Point.

There are several ways to implement it. In our case, we use an HA solution, a Check Point cluster that safely provides us with work continuity.

The characteristic that has caught our attention the most is its easy implementation in Microsoft Azure. Under a template, the tool can be provisioned with the best practices. Its licensing can be BYOL or PAYG through Microsoft Azure where it can be licensed on a monthly basis.

The different implementation options create wide variability for users.

This security tool is also up-to-date against the most modern threats, constantly being updated globally to provide intelligence accumulated by other devices worldwide to combat computer insecurity.

The tool is somewhat more expensive than its competitors. It could equalize the costs a little to be able to be more competitive.

On the other hand, Check Point documentation does not always help easy implementation for new users or amateurs in the security field.

Finally, the support must be improved. They need to improve times and schedules and solve both in local applications and in the cloud. Sometimes a solution is extended in the newest tools. Sometimes it is better to investigate one on your own than to wait for a Check Point solution.

We have used this Check Point NGFW for about three consecutive years. We have improved the technical capacity of the staff to use it. It's an excellent tool.

We used Cisco and Fortinet as tests. Check Point seems more robust.

A Check Point vendor is necessary to be able to address licensing properly.

I'd recommend carefully validating the documentation and carrying out test environments before implementing NGFW solutions in production to see the pros and cons that are generated in your infrastructure.

We evaluated various options, including security upgrades, performance, and Gartner ratings, to make the decision.

It is an expensive tool. It's very good and effective. If you have the option or facility to acquire it, I recommend you try it first and you will love it.

I have been using this solution as a perimeter firewall. 

Our organization has ISP-based DDoS protection on the outer attack surface. Then, we have Check Point Next Generation Firewall with an IPS module as a second layer of protection. And then, we have Check Point Access Control, Application, and URL filtering, anti-virus, and anti-bot modules enabled. We also have the cloud-based Check Point Threat Emulation solution and different segmentations on Check Point Firewall as a DMZ zone, internal zone, and external zone. Our internal zones have different segments to improve our security level. We apply it by dividing our network into different VLANs by using the Check Point solution.

Check Point is the first vendor in which we found the stateful firewall terminology. It is always on the top of the list of best firewall solutions. 

Financially, the benefit of Check Point is very high when I compare it with an average firewall solution. At the end of the day, the benefits it provides are already higher than I paid. 

Our business performance is already doubled by the help of Check Point. If we need to talk about efficiency of administrators while managing a security  solution, I consider it as one of the most important item. 

Thanks to Check Point, our security team can easily handle different problems in time.

Check Point gateway and management installation are very easy. After the console-based installation steps, you can continue on the web GUI interface. This is very valuable. It doesn't let you make a simple mistake, which might be a reason to install all the systems from the beginning. It has been designed to give you flexibility as much as needed; not more, not less. It prevents human mistakes, basically.

If I have to say just one thing as the most valuable; I will say it is the most reliable firewall solution in the world. It is easy to prove that when I compare the number of CVEs which are published in a year among firewall vendors.

The routing rules and some more network settings should be listed on the Check Point Smart Console instead of GAIA Web GUI. It might be a little bit confusing when an administrator remembers the location of the settings. Also, it is hard to manage the settings by always jumping from GAIA Web-based graphical user interface to Java based Smart Console dashboard. Also, Check Point Next Generation Firewall has a very detailed and well-organized CP view on the console on both CLISH and expert (/bin/bash) shells; which gives an administrator a real-time monitoring option on the console.

I have been using it for more than six years.

On a heavy load, I haven't experienced packet loss or inconsistent behaviors.

In the beginning, I would consider Check Point solution as not scalable enough. However, after Maestro architecture, it is extremely scalable now. The organizations does not have to pay a lot of money to plan for the next 2-3 years. They are flexible enough to allow for the extension of their systems by adding another module like a blade.

The customer service and support team respond in minutes. If it is a critical issue, you can reach them in seconds via chat.

Positive

I used Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls before. From Fortinet to Palo Alto it was a big change. 

Fortinet was not a good enough solution as compared to PA. Then, due to finances and some other reasons, I switched to the Check Point and it was one of the best decisions in my life.

The initial setup is straightforward. You just need to define disk allocation for logs and system files and backup files as an amount. Then you can continue with Web GUI to set up network, DNS, etc. settings. Then you complete your setup by installing the Smart Console interface.

The Check Point support team is one of the best. When I need them, they can escalate the ticket to an appropriate level of engineer to fix the problem.

As a security solution in this kind of market, prestige and being reliable cannot be measured with money. It costs more than a million dollars to have a defacement attack. The costs to prevent this kind of attack cannot be measured with money, in my opinion.

I'd advise others to worry about changing their firewall habits from any vendor to Check Point. It will be one of the best decisions of their life. If you have time and money to take care of other vendors, go ahead. However, if you are smart enough to manage your money and time, don't be afraid to give a chance to Check Point solution.

I did get some PoCs from other vendors such as Sophos and some other firewall vendors which are focused on small-size organizations mostly.

I recommend to all system managers and security administrators to try all the enterprise firewall solutions. Then, most likely the final decision will be to use the Check Point Next Generation firewall.

The solution is primarily used as an edge firewall safeguarding any organization or company which are really considering it as their number firewall of choice. In addition, there were also companies that are only using the specific blades, for example, IPS or IPsec, only as their primary solution. It is mostly used as an edge firewall. Sometimes, all security blades are utilized. As a significant part of the whole network infrastructure, Check Point delivers high detection and prevention rates when talking about suspicious and cyberattack types of activities.

Primarily, Check Point played a very vital role in protecting our whole network infrastructure. Having been able to implement such a solution will keep one's organization's security posture well guarded. The best part of Check Point NGFW's operational mechanisms were the Threat Extraction and Threat Emulation blades respectively. The former delivers documents with zero malware in zero seconds and the latter analyzes the original document in an isolated sandbox, identifying unknown threats. 

I'd recommend this kind of firewall for companies considering it since the detection rate for any cyberattacks/suspicious activity is very high (more than 90%).

Check Point NGFW has all the security blades a certain company would want to implement for a network firewall facing the public internet. The upsides of choosing this kind of firewall are traffic acceleration, core acceleration, and interface acceleration which would help in maintaining smooth sailing activity, giving administrators less dilemma. 

Administrators always find it hard and disturbing when such a network bottleneck occurs spontaneously out of nowhere. With that said, Check Point still ranks first among other vendors.

It would be best if the security management server console access is simpler for ease of management. System administrators find it really difficult for the management settings to incorporate easily. Most administrators nowadays are looking into something that offers easy access to a management console or GUI. 

I could not think of other areas for improvement. This is the firewall that I liked the most among other vendors in the market. It's by far the best firewall in the security industry.

I've used the solution for three years already - since the start of my Network Security Engineer career.

Stability-wise, it is perfect! 

When you perform sizing, make sure that the necessary scalability is considered. There's no going back when things like this are compromised.

Lately, Check Point support is nowhere to be found.  We are always attending other customer sessions when, in fact, support is needed for a P1.

Neutral

Mostly, they are the Gartner leaders for NGFW. A switch was made when customers found the solution more secure per doing the proof of concept.

I could say that it is complex even though they are already CCSE and Check Point Expert. There is no way I could find its management easy to use.

We handled the setup in-house.

That there is a money-back guarantee for their business. A business being secured is a business of high return.

There are a lot of evaluations to be done prior to choosing the solution. It caught the customer's attention when the threat extraction/emulation blade really did well during the proof of concept activity.

So far I have mentioned all the things needed to be given importance with regard to an NGFW solution.