Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

We are using the new version of Check Point NGFW. 

We use the solution for web page protection to provide the security service which is lacking in Bolivia, a poverty ridden country. 

I like the facility of the product configuration. The ease with which the solution can be put into production makes it easy for my employers and for me to provide client support. 

The interface could be better. There is much equipment that is involved in the monitoring of many clients in a single interface. 

With other platforms, such as WatchGuard, it is very simple to manage four, five or six of these. We are talking about a lot of clients. The platforms for doing monitoring should be addressed. 

The solution boasts good stability. 

The solution boasts good scalability. 

I have not had need to make use of technical support. 

The initial setup is easy. 

When it comes to the deployment and maintenance, there are two people involved, one for the deployment and the other for monitoring, consisting of an engineer and a technician. 

I feel that the clients are very satisfied with the product.

I don't have any particular advice when it comes to the deployment process. This will depend on the client's needs. 

I rate Check Point NGFW as an eight out of ten. 

We are using Check Point NGFW as a firewall for our organization. All the internet traffic goes through it.

The separate management feature of Check Point NGFW is very convenient.

I have been Check Point NGFW for approximately five years.

The solution is stable when it is running incapacity, if it goes beyond it can be not stable. There could be more stability by having more ports or CPU power.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is really poor. We have to wait for approximately 48 hours sometimes for a simple solution.

The installation is not straightforward.

We needed help from the Check Point expert experts because we deployed it in the HA. It's a bit different from the other firewall vendors. You need a Check Point expert to deploy it initially.

We have a five-person technical team for the maintenance of the solution. We use managers, admins, engineers, and developers.

I rate Check Point NGFW an eight out of ten.

My primary use case of this solution is for the data center in the perimeter security. We configure all of our security features like anti-boot, antivirus, and filtering.

I think the most valuable feature is that the application and configuration were easy for us. When we need to do some work with the networks, configuration and deploying are easy - if I want to search for information, it is easy in the Check Point platform.

I think the price of this product could be improved - other solutions are cheaper in comparison. In the next release, I would like to be able to perform sandboxing to check email attachments and information sent through the cloud for viruses.

I think this solution is stable.

My impression is that the solution is scalable.

I implemented using a vendor team, whose performance was good.

I considered using Cisco before deciding on Check Point.

Check Point is easy for the configuration user. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

I work for a systems integrator and have designed and deployed solutions over many years with Check Point components. Problems solved with Check Point NGFWs have included securing the edge, data center segregation, SWG replacement, Remote Access, and many others.

I have designed and installed Check Point deployments from a single SMB appliance to multiple highly available chassis, running numerous virtual systems. Numerous different use cases include appliance form-factors, running modules, and licenses.

I have always found that Check Point's fully integrated management provides significant improvements to organisations where I have deployed them. As management has always been integral in the Check Point deployment, all functionality and visibility is natively baked into the management platform, which provides a single point to configure and monitor every function. Alternative vendors have added centralized management functionality as a secondary feature and therefore have never been able to compete on this front.

Management integration is holistic as centralized management has been core to the solution for decades. Where other vendors have bolted management on over time, Check Point has always made it central to everything that they do.  

I find that this is one of the most significant and valuable features of Check Point. In addition to that, many new features that eventually become the standard across the industry end up being first introduced by Check Point - sometimes years ahead (such as Threat Extraction which allows active content to be stripped from files being downloaded and a "clean" copy to be provided in near real-time, while sandbox inspection is being performed).

Product-wise, I have no real complaints. 

Potential improvements could be made around simplifying VPN functionality and configuration.  

The main area that the organization can improve is around the lack of local, in-state technical support. Competitor vendors have a strong presence in the Adelaide Market, however, Check Point has always been limited with its commitment to staffing local technical resources. If this focus is made, I could see Check Point returning to the strength that it once had in the Adelaide market.

I've used the solution for 17 years.

I do like that this solution is a very robust firewall.

It's very stable. 

The product is well supported. The solution is very scalable. 

Technical support has been quite good. 

The only thing I would like to improve is the updates. Sometimes when they bring on new upgrades, they affect something else. That happens sometimes. For example, something that was working well might have a new issue after an update. It's understandable as they do have like to add innovations. When you are innovative, you face some risks. 

They have already announced that they will be adding SD-WAN as a new feature.

I've been using the solution for 18 years.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. That said, I would like the latest version to be more stable.

The product is very scalable. You have very good options. For example, if you start with a smaller firewall and you want to upgrade to have newer hardware, they have different options. For example, you can run a script that is going to tell you the new appliances that you need, according to your new requirements according to your network consumption. 

It did launch Maestro about two years ago. Maestro is something that allows you to stack firewalls. If your current firewalls handle the traffic anymore, you can add new firewalls to it. 

If you want to change the firewall you can do these trade-ins. You can return the old firewall and they will give you a special discount. 

Technical support has been very helpful and responsive. We've been happy with the level of support they offer. 

The product is easy to set up. I am seasoned on Check Point. For me, it's very easy. I wouldn't say it's hard. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

I have certain customers who make use of the solution for providing security in respect of internet access. I am aware only of the solution acting as a firewall. 

My customers cite performance and ease of configuration as two of the solution's most valuable features. 

The price is middling. It's much more expensive than Fortinet, although not so expensive when compared with Palo Alto. 

The solution is significantly more expensive than Fortinet, although this holds true to a lesser extent when compared with Palo Alto. 

The solution is significantly more expensive than Fortinet, although this holds true to a lesser degree when compared with Palo Alto. 

I do not have much familiarity with Check Point NGFW, although I do have several customers who make use of it. I can mainly comment based on what I have come across in user reviews in magazines.

I know the solution to be one of the top players in the world at the moment. 

As Check Point NGFW does not compare favorably price-wise with Fortinet, I am inclined to deduct a point from its rating and rate it as a nine out of ten.

Check Point has strong security features as well as some decent monitoring and management capabilities.

My customers complain that the interface isn't user-friendly.

I have been using Check Point for eight years.

Check Point stable. I've had no problems.

Check Point is scalable.

Check Point support is good.

Check Point's setup process isn't very user-friendly.

Check Point is a little more expensive than FortiGate.

I rate Check Point nine out of 10. I work with both Check Point and FortiGate. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Check Point is more secure than FortiGate. However, Fortigate is more affordable and user-friendly. FortiGate offers seamless solutions to customers, so If they want a solution that's easy to use, they go with FortiGate.

We primarily use the solution for security.

Check Point NGFW is a stable and user-friendly solution. It has increased the security level and stability within our organization. With the ATP solution, it works and is fully competent. It can catch many zero-day attacks and it fits NGFW well,

The most valuable features are IPS and Antivirus. 

The Blades work fine and the performance optimization is great.

In some features, it is not easy to use the Check Point firewall. 

The IPSEC VPN setup is not easy to configure. In some cases, if the VPN is not established, it is very hard to troubleshoot the configuration. It does not address the problem well. 

The upgrading process takes too much time.

I've used the solution for seven years.

The stability is very good. I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

In most cases, they answer our ticket in one day. They are willing to solve the problems at hand.

The initial setup is not easy, however, it is also not very complex. We have to use both the Gaia and smart console interface and it should be checked for some conf from the CLI.

We did and their expertise was high. We did not face many problems.

We are Check Point partners and I'm a co-founder and CTO of our company. 

The firewall and IPS are the most valuable features of the solution. 

I think third-party integration could be improved. We have also faced some performance-related challenges and there is some work to do in that area too. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

We're satisfied with the stability. 

The solution is easy to scale. 

The technical support response time needs to improve. 

This solution was moderately difficult to implement. We had some help from the distributor. We receive automatic updates but no maintenance is required. We have two people administering the solution. 

The solution offers good value. 

I recommend this product. It offers good value, and it's a high-quality product. I rate the product eight out of 10.

I use CheckPoint in our data center to control the internet and to enable threat prevention. I then integrate it into my center and to my events.

I like the SmartEvent feature. When we see a threat, SmartEvent can create a rule for that. SmartEvent works with the SmartCenter to block a threat attack with a block monitor. The SmartCenter has the management for all the firewalls and data centers in a single dashboard.

It could be more stable and scalable. Check Point price and support could be better.

I have ten years of experience using Check Point NGFW.

Check Point NGFW could be more stable. I think the problem is that the kernel sometimes won't play ball and isn't stable. Sometimes, they have a block, and we have to spend a lot of time fixing it. In contrast, I think Palo Alto and Fortinet are more stable.

Check Point NGFW could be more scalable. I think Palo Alto has more plugins and features, and Check Point needs more features. However, Check Point integration is very complex.

Check Point support could be better. I think Palo Alto has a very clear pricing model. When we have an issue, we create a ticket and receive fast service from Palo Alto. It's good.

The initial setup, in my experience, isn't simple as Fortinet and Palo Alto. It would be better if the person doing it has experience. 

I implemented this solution by myself.

The price could be better. I think Palo Alto pricing is high, and Check Point isn't much better. FortiGate is cheaper. I think when I implemented this solution, I recommended buying a yearly subscription.

When I choose a solution for a customer, I must verify the features, current specifications and make recommendations. When we use an all-in-one firewall solution, we usually recommend using a Palo Alto external firewall. This is because Fortinet has an SD-WAN solution and firewalls, and Palo Alto is the same. But I don't think Check Point has one. When a customer doesn't want to implement many solutions, we recommend using Fortinet or Palo Alto.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Check Point NGFW an eight.