Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

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.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

While the solution is good, we wish to have something that is a bit better, as the threats have evolved over time. We have been using Check Point for more than than eight years and are interested in a better solution. We entered a review site which ranks top security firewalls and saw that Palo Alto is ranked number one, followed by Fortinet, with Check Point in the lead. We noticed that Palo Alto was much more expensive than Fortinet, but wished to know which key features differentiated the two. 

Though we did not take issue with the price of Check Point NGFW, we felt that it was providing us with inadequate support here in Uganda. This is why we decided to switch solutions. I should note that I do not have a technical background and am responsible for procurement. 

The value we were getting for our money was an issue. I work for a bank for which security is very important, but we were not being assured of the appropriate support. The licensing fees we were paying did not equate with adequate local support. We had already had a bad experience with Check Point, so we did not bother with a quote from it and, instead, got one from several local companies that can support either Palo Alto or Fortinet. 

We do not feel that the local support given in Uganda is equitable with the pricing. 

While the pricing is okay, the local Ugandan support one gets is not commensurate with it. 

I rate Check Point NGFW as a six out of ten. 

Primarily, we implement the solution at a couple of sites around the world and have created five site VPNs across it. We are running a pretty decent policy to make sure internally our infrastructure is secure.

The product offers excellent security. How open they are with new risks and new vulnerabilities is very helpful in the task of keeping our company safe from malicious attacks.

Newer versions are much more stable.

The UI could use some improvement. It's not as clean or seamless as it could be. 

It's my understanding that the initial setup is a bit complex. There's a bit of a learning curve if you're trying to set it up for the first time and you aren't familiar with the product.

Older versions were a bit unstable. 

We've been using the solution for six or seven years so far. It's been a while. 

While this version seems to be quite stable, Check Point, in previous versions, had a lot of issues when we used to do firmware updates.

We have 200 people on the solution currently. 

I also have experience with Fortinet. I don't have too much, however. It's still very new to me, and therefore it's hard to compare the two solutions. 

While I didn't directly participate in the implementation, from the people that participated, I've heard that it's complicated if you don't know the product very well.

We hired a company to do the implementation. I don't remember the dynamics of the team. The last time it was set up, there were two people on the implementation team. 

While we don't have a direct relationship with the company, we do have business relationships with both Fortinet and Checkpoint partners.

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

We use this solution for web filtering and threat analysis.

The reporting needs to be improved. I still don't have access to the reporting service.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for three years.

I am not sure which version is being used at this time. If we are not using the latest version, we are using the version before that.

We have recently had some issues with the stability of this solution. It is not stable.

We had an issue when we made some improvements to our power supply and the Check Point stopped working and needed to be recovered. There were many errors in the file system and it could not start. It blocked the work for the entire factory. We lost three days where we could not work.

That was the final straw for us and why we are moving to FortiGate.

Our company is outsourcing the support.

We are also using Fortinet FortiGate 600 and 200. We have also just ordered Palo Alto.

We pay the licensing fees on a yearly basis.

We are one of the largest manufacturers of steel in Europe.

I would not recommend this solution to others. I am very disappointed.

I would rate Check Point NGFW a five out of ten.

On-premises

We primarily use it for security.

The most valuable features for us are the solution's identity awareness and intrusion prevention.

The solution is very stable.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

Technical support is very good.

The complexity could be fixed. It's a bit complex to set up, for example. They could make it a streamlined and easier process. 

In a future release, it would be nice if they added web administration capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for about 20 years. It's been two decades at this point. I've used it for quite a while. 

The stability of the solution has been excellent so far. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability of the product is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can. It's not hard. 

We have found the technical support to be very helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support we get from them.

The initial setup is not easy. It's a bit complex. 

We're a partner.

I'd recommend this solution to other users and companies. We've been happy with its capabilities. 

I'd give the solution a rating of nine out of ten.

Our customers primarily buy the solution to protect the network from malware at the perimeter of the Network. The next-gen firewalls help the customer to have an application-level control of the traffic.

The features that I have found most valuable are its flexibility and user interface. This is already a well-established product in the market for quite a long time, more than 20 years. They've got a huge customer base.

In terms of what could be improved, I'd like granularity where you can have all the levels of policies that are defined. 

In additional feature that could be added to this solution in the future is micro-segmentation, like Palo Alto has on the firewall itself.

I began using Check Point Next Generation Firewall very recently, about four or five months ago.

We have an internal team for maintenance.

In terms of scalability, what we have seen is that it has a big deployment right now. So it all depends on what kind of environment the customer has. If he's already a Check Point user, it is easy for them, but if it is migrating from one platform to another, it is a little complex. One more thing is that the skillset availability required for Check Point is, in terms of implementation, a little less compared to others. The resources and the technical stuff are there for implementation. You find fewer people on Check Point compared to Sophos or Fortinet or any other platform.

The installation process, if it is a greenfield opportunity, is easy. If it is a migration from one platform to another, you need to have expertise on both the technologies. Let's say for example you're migrating from Fortinet to Check Point, or from Sophos to Check Point or Check Point to any other, you need to have expertise on the platform, even though you should have good experience in terms of migrating and technologies.

In my experience, Check Point provides both in-depth experience and cost-effectiveness compared to Palo Alto. So, Check Point is good for customers already using Check Point and Palo Alto is for anybody who wants to have the latest and most advanced features and has a good budget.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Check Point NGFW an 8.

Hybrid Cloud

As a next-generation firewall, this product is capable of handling all kinds of threats that might try to attack the network, including events such as DDoS attacks. 

The compliance part of the product has been very useful to our organization. There are many useful reports from this firewall device. For example, it can tell us how much of our network has compliance with the guidelines that are in place.

The product is very easy to use.

It's quite a stable solution.

The scalability is very good.

The solution is easy to install and deploy.

The product could always be even more stable and secure, as it would improve protection.

As we aren't using the very latest iteration, it's hard to say which features are lacking, as some might have been added in the latest releases we haven't yet migrated over to.

The pricing could always be more competitive.

Technical support needs to be more helpful.

I've been using the solution for the last six months or so. It's been less than a year, and therefore, it hasn't been that long. 

The stability is good. There are no bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution offers good scalability. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not hard.

We have 50 users on the solution right now.

I would say that technical support could be better. We also use Cisco, and, in comparison, Cisco's support is way better in terms of how helpful and responsive they are. We aren't as satisfied with Check Point. They need to be faster, friendlier, and much more knowledgeable. 

Right now I am using Check Point and Cisco ASA.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment doesn't take long either. It's a fast process.

You only really need two people for deployment and maintenance for most setups.

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant. 

The solution could work to make the pricing a bit lower. It's similar in cost to Palo Alto, however, if it was lower, it would make them more competitive. 

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Check Point. 

We are not using the latest version of the solution, however, I cannot speak to the actual version number. We might be a version or two behind the latest update.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've largely been quite pleased with its capabilities.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

The next-generation firewalls are used on the perimeter within a couple of data centers. There are lots of firewalls and we are trying to consolidate everything in the final solution. The MDS and VSX are real solutions that are easing the consolidation across different domains to make management easier. It also improves the overall solution from the operations perspective where BAU teams can leverage different Check Point product lines, like Smart Log, to support customers on a daily basis.

There is a lot of legacy traffic from other vendors that has been migrated to Check Point which has resulted in a lot of stability in our environment. Moreover, consolidation happening across different legacy environments is being enhanced by the usage of MDS and VSX solutions offered by Check Point. This is making things easier from both a migration and implementation perspective. It offers easy management architecture, and, with Smart Log, makes life easier for the operations engineers and different teams working with Check Point products.

The most valuable feature of Check Point is the Centralized Management (MDS) and Virtualization (VSX) for the firewalls. Using these features provides enhanced security with reduced cost across different domains and tenants with complete segregation from the policies database and a user traffic perspective. Using these features is proving to be scalable as things are virtualized and the resources can be increased or decreased as per the demand or usage from a project perspective.

The product or services can be improved from the cost and the pricing perspective. There are a lot of other competitors in the market providing similar solutions with more low-cost options. There is no doubt that the great three-tier architecture of Check Point is great, however, when the cost is considered, it proves to be a bit expensive as compared to other products in the market. Also, the licensing and maintenance costs are quite high. Maintaining these solutions proves to be a bit costly to organizations from a day-to-day perspective.

I've used the solution for five years.

The stability is excellent.

The scalability is really good.

We are satisfied with the level of support.

Yes, we have used a different solution previously and have switched because of the great performance that Check Point offers.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Yes, and we had a good experience.

The ROI meets our expectations.

The cost is quite high for Check Point products.

Yes, however, I prefer not to say which.

Overall, the solution and product line are good but more competitive pricing can be offered.

On-premises

It's our main firewall and the first line of protection from the outside! We use it to interconnect our remote locations (that use different vendors and equipment) and let the employees work remotely.

We're a small site with 300 users and this equipment is more than enough for us. We use almost all the blades and the equipment has run smoothly for years.

This NGFW monitors all the traffic outside of the main network, prevents malicious activities, and lets us easily manage network policies to shape our connections.

Stability and security are the best way to describe this solution. The attacks from the outside still exist, but now we're better protected. We can view everything that goes in and out of our network with all the information in one place. The drill-down is very helpful and easy to use. Currently, we can troubleshoot connection problems live and solve them in a couple of minutes. This is an improvement on the 1-2 hours with the old solution.

In 4 years we've only had one problem with the equipment (due to a malfunctioning UPS). That corrupted the boot of the equipment, but was easily solved with an fsck.

We basically use almost all the blades, since the IPS, Threat Emulation, Spam, etc., are essential for our work. However, currently, Mobile Access is the most valuable. The stability of the solution and the security it gives when working remotely is great. It lets our employees work from everywhere, anytime!

The AntiSpam/Mail blade was also one of the main reasons we went with this product since we hosted our email server locally. This was an extra layer of protection on top of the existing solution.

Threat and Application control are also very important to us.

I do prefer to manage everything from only one point of entry/one application. Some things can only be configured from the smart console and others from the smart dashboard. This is the only handicap in this solution. It would be ideal to manage everything from one central place.

Instead of using a windows application to manage the equipment, it would be better to use a web app to configure the solution from a browser.  I know that it's not as powerful (you can't do everything from there), but then we could manage the solution and troubleshoot from any device.

It's faster to see the event logs on a webpage than it is to see them in the smart console.

I've used the solution for 4 years.

It's very stable. It's also the main reason I love the solution.

During this time i never had to manually restart the equipment because of connectivity problems or because of CPU/memory degradation performance. Sometimes these values get high, but i never lose Throughtput, the equipment continues to run smoothly. We used to restart our older firewall at least 2 times per month.

In the beginning, because we use the spam blade, the memory usage was always high, and the administration was a little bit slow. But Checkpoint provided us an extra memory upgrade and after that we never had administration problems. If we don't have internet connection it's allways the ISP, it was never because of the firewall.

Although I only have one unit, I know that it scales perfectly.

We only had one problem with this equipment. That was because it couldn't boot properly due to disk corruption (malfunction UPS), however, searching the technical Check Point forums it was easy to find a solution to the problem at hand.

We managed to solve the problem without contacting customer service at all.

We used to have Zyxel products, but they were aging and couldn't let us connect at faster speeds.

The setup was easy. It didn't take long to have it up and running.

The only concern for us was the remote sites - since it was different vendors. However, we had everything documented and prepared and due to that, it went flawlessly.

It was also easy to create access policies.

The implementation was through a vendor, and the installation went really well. The consultant was Check Point certified and explained everything in detail.

Later on, we added new remote sites to the configuration (in-house) without any problem. We didn't need to check with the vendor.

It's not easy to calculate, however, given the stability and security of the solution, it's elevated. There are no bulletproof solutions. That said, now we can rest a bit more because our assets are more protected than they were a couple of years ago.

The setup cost, pricing, and licensing can be a bit expensive, but, I promise, it's completely worth the cost.

I evaluated Fortinet and Check Point.

It simply works like a charm. The stability and trust in the vendor are also very important to us.

On-premises