Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

The Next Generation Firewalls, the 64000 and 44000 series, provide us with support for large data centers and telco environments. They're quite reliable and provide great performance.

There are a lot of features which help us in providing a more secure environment for our organization, such as when we have Active-Active.

The most valuable feature is that the scalable 64000 Next Generation Firewalls are designed to excel in large data centers and the telco environment as well. We have a lot of these types of customers, and these Check Point firewalls support them.

In addition 

• it supports dynamic objects, which we use for security purposes
• the antivirus is quite effective
• the logging and tracking are quite easy
• overall, it is easy to use.

The area where Check Point can improve is the antivirus, as it only provides a small number of updates for it. Updates should be more frequent.

In addition, the certification process is quite expensive. It should be a little cheaper so that everyone can be trained and certified and have better knowledge of Check Point's products.

I have been using Check Point's firewalls for more than a year. My responsibilities include implementing changes on the firewalls and troubleshooting.

They're quite stable and quite good. Management is simple because we can implement a lot of changes on the firewalls through the central manager.

They're quite scalable because they support large data centers, while offering reliability and performances as well.

The initial setup is quite easy. You don't need much training for it. Deployment takes around one week.

We have different stages in the setup process and we follow all the stages. We have to give structure to the plan, outline what we need to do. That goes to our manager, our senior experts, for approval. Then we implement the changes after their approval. Once the changes are implemented, we have our team leaders who validate whether everything is good and as expected or not. Then we close it. This is the basic strategy we follow in our organization.

About 500 to 600 employees work on Check Point firewalls in our organization and they have different roles. For example, I handle network and security admin. There are also security associates, consultants, and analysts.

The pricing of Check Point's firewalls is good. It is not that expensive.

We're using Check Point Next Generation Firewalls to secure the internal LAN network from unwanted threats and for protecting the environment for business use.

The most valuable feature is the central management system through the Security Management Server. Apart from that, the graphical user interface helps us to do things easily.

The frequency of the antivirus updates which we get for Check Point firewalls should increase. They should be of good quality compared to the competitive firewalls on the market. They should give us stable antivirus signatures. That is an area in which they can improve.

I have been using Check Point's Next Generation Firewalls for the last three-and-a-half years.

These firewalls are very stable and, apart from the antivirus issue which I mentioned, everything is stable in them. The best thing is that they are the most advanced firewall on the market.

Per my experience, it is very easy to scale these firewalls, because they are combined with the central management point. It is very easy to push the same configuration to different firewalls at the same time. It does not take much time to extend usage.

We use them throughout our organization. Currently we have used them for around 50 percent of our needs and there is definitely a room to grow. In the future we will definitely try to increase usage, if it is required.

We have had a good experience with the Check Point support guys. The solutions they provide are very straightforward and are provided quickly.

I used Palo Alto firewalls. Compared to Palo Alto we are happier with the Check Point Firewall features. Key differences are the ease of operating Check Point firewalls and the use of Linux, as we are all trained in Linux. It is easier for us to work on the ELA of Check Point firewalls. And Check Point's support is good.

Check Point is the best firewall we have found for our organization so we went with it.

In our company we do setup of Check Point firewalls very frequently because we are a growing company and we are required to do them on a fresh basis for our new branches.

The initial setup for these firewalls is straightforward. There's nothing complex about Check Point firewalls. They are easy to install and configure. We have cloud-based VM firewalls. We configure them in our environment. It is easy to access them and it is also easy to implement the changes on them.

Deployment time depends on the condition and the space of the organization. In our case, it requires three to six months for the setup phase. We have the same implementation strategy for all our branches, which is very simple. It is a three-level hierarchy which is recommended by Check Point. We use the SmartConsole, we use the Security Gateway, and we use the Security Management Server.

In my organization there are six people who have the access to the Check Point firewalls. Two of them are network administrators and four are managers.

We are happy with the return on investment from the Check Point firewalls. We are happy with the features and with the protection they provide us.

The licensing part is easy for Check Point firewalls. You just purchase the license and install it on the firewall. The pricing is a bit high, but obviously it gives you advanced features. If you want to buy the best thing on the market, you have to pay extra money.

When implementing the product, follow the recommendations which Check Point provides. Follow the backup for the firewall so that in case of an issue, you have a secondary firewall active.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that there is a scope of improvement. Companies that are improving and providing updates frequently are growing more. In addition, improving support is a very key part of things. Check Point rates well on all these points.

I support multiple clients within the UK, the EMEA region, the US, and now in Asia Pacific as well. I specialize in Check Point firewalls. I design and secure their data centers, their on-premises solutions, or their businesses security.

The firewalls are mostly on-premise because most of our clients are financial organizations and they have strict compliance requirements. They feel more secure and have more control when things are on-premise in the data center. However, there are use cases where I have helped them to deploy Check Point solutions in the cloud: AWS, Azure, and in Google as well. But cloud deployments are very much in the early stages for these clients, on a development or testing basis. Most of the production workloads are still on-premise in data centers.

Most of my customers are still using R77.30, and they are on track to upgrade from that to R80, which is the current proposed version by Check Point.

One of our customers has just recently been attacked by malware and internal DoS attacks, and they have a multi-vendor, multi-layer firewall approach. The internal firewalls are Check Point. The great thing about Check Point is that because of its central architecture, you can very quickly pinpoint where the attacks are coming from. It gives you comprehensive reporting when the attacks start and when they've stopped, so you can see the complete, end-to-end picture: where the point of attack is, at what time, and what host. They can track all of that.

However, in parallel, that customer is using other firewalls which have no visibility. One of the main advantages of having Check Point firewall is definitely that it gives you absolute in-depth visibility.

Among the valuable features are antivirus, URL inspection, and anti-malware protection. These are all advanced features.

One of the great advantages of having Check Point as a firewall is that all of these are software blades, so you can buy a license or subscription and enable them and get the security up and running. With other firewalls, it's a completely different agenda, meaning some of them require hardware modules, and some of them have a complex way of adding the licensing, etc. Check Point definitely has a great architecture, where you can just enable the software blades and deploy a secure service. Overall, it provides ease of deployment and ease of use.

The area it needs improvement is the SandBlast Agent. It receives a file, or if it detects a Zero-day attack, it takes the file and analyzes it, either on-premise or in the Check Point Cloud, and then it reports back whether the file is secure or non-secure, or is unknown. That particular area definitely needs a bit more improvement, because there is a delay. That's one of the main complaints for most of our customers. Or if it is quick, then it's very complex. For example, if they have received a file which is "unknown" or has Zero-day attack malware, sometimes it doesn't get analyzed properly or it's locked into the cloud. So there are various small issues with the product that need possible improvement.

The SandBlast product on its own is a very good concept, and it works absolutely brilliantly. However, when you integrate it with existing firewalls, it just doesn't play very well.

The cloud solution is quite straightforward because it seems the SandBlast solution was designed, initially, for cloud deployments, where you've got multiple clouds or multiple vendors, and you are receiving files from different points. And on the cloud edge, for example in AWS, if you have Check Point sitting there, it works very well if you're running a virtual firewall. However, if it's on-premise and it's a dedicated appliance, then the performance is slightly different and the way it works is very different. So where it needs improvement is where it's an appliance-based solution rather than a software or cloud-based solution.

If I am using SandBlast on a virtual appliance — for example, I've got Check Point virtual appliances in AWS, and Azure as well, for a customer — those virtual appliances work absolutely fine as a service, as does SandBlast as a service. However, if it's an appliance, if it's a dedicated firewall on-premise in a data center and you add SandBlast as a software service, the integration is not that straightforward, so the experience is very different. 

It seems like they were possibly built by different teams, independent of each other.

I've been using Check Point firewalls for about 16 years. I am the main network or security lead and I have four other engineers who report to me. They also do design and deployment.

I work with approximately 40 companies that utilize Check Point.

Check Point firewalls are very stable. One good thing about Check Point is that they do rigorous testing internally before releasing updates, which is something I have not found with any other firewall products. With most of the other firewall products, when they release something, it's like the customer becomes the guinea pig for that particular version, whether a minor or a major update. However, with Check Point, you can see all the white papers and what ways they have tested a minor or major upgrade of the software version, and what the performance was like. What are their known issues and is somebody working on them or not?

So the software releases are very stable and you have visibility into how they operate and what the known issues are, so you know whether you should go ahead with them or not. And in case there is a problem, the support is excellent. You can reach out to Check Point and say, "Look, I've done the software upgrade and I'm experiencing these problems. How can I deal with them?" They are there to help you out.

There are times when we have problems in terms of software or hardware defects. We have sustained downtime, but most of the architecture I design is resilient, so if one device is down, the other one is working fine. Then in the background, I or my support team will deal with Check Point directly, to get a replacement. They're definitely quick to respond and very efficient. 

In the past, we had a lot of problems with licensing, specifically, but Check Point has redone the whole way they do licensing. It's very quick now, and very efficient.

Check Point firewalls are extremely scalable. Recently, I deployed Check Point in an AWS cloud solution for one of my clients, and it's been absolutely excellent in handling growth. They've grown from 10,000 users to a million users. The way Check Point has advertised the product, it is supposed to be highly scalable, which means it grows as your demand grows, and that has been the case. 

Recently we have set up a test case where we are moving over management servers from on-premise to a Check Point-provided Infinity cloud solution. We are still at the testing phase but, overall, it's been a great experience so far.

The teams we deal with within Check Point are extremely knowledgeable. They know how to understand the background of the problem, and they're very good about articulating how we deal with the issue, whether it's a minor software upgrade issue or it's a major failure of the hardware itself. They know where to look for the right stuff. The key point is they're very knowledgeable and very technical. And if somebody doesn't have the technical capability, they will definitely help you out to make sure you get to the bottom of the problem.

In the past, most of the customers I've worked with have used different firewall vendors, such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Juniper.

I've recently seen deployments where customers have tried to move from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower and the deployment has gone horribly wrong because the product has not been tested by Cisco very well and is not a mature product. I've gone in and reviewed their business requirements and technical requirements and, based on that, I've recommended Check Point and done the design and deployment. They've absolutely been happy with the solution, how secure and how capable it is.

We use Check Point across multiple types of customers, such as financials, retail, and various other public and private sector organizations. I review their security architecture, which is firewall specific and, based on that, I have recommended Check Point. In most cases, I've managed to convince them to go ahead with Check Point firewalls as a preferred secure firewall solution.

The main reason is that Check Point is far ahead in the game. They're definitely the market leader. They are visionaries when it comes to security. Another reason is that a lot of firewall architecture starts from the firewall itself, which is the local firewall. It can easily be hacked and manipulated. However, the Check Point architecture, out-of-the-box, is very secure. They have a central Management Server and all of the firewalls are managed through that one central point. So in case somebody breaks into your firewall, the firewall is encrypted; they will delete the database. The architecture is secure by default. The good thing is that other firewall vendors have realized this and they've started to copy the same system that Check Point has used for the past 20 years now.

When working with the Check Point team on deployment, they're really helpful and very talented people. When you speak to other firewall vendors, they just think about the firewall from their point of view. The good thing about Check Point engineers, or technical staff, or even management staff, is that they understand what the requirements of business are and how they can improve or align the proposed solution. Overall, Check Point staff are very knowledgeable, they understand different industries, and they understand the product very well. That's definitely a competitive edge compared to other firewalls.

Once the design is done, for something simple the deployment can take half a day, whereas for a complex deployment in a data center it can take about five days.

Our implementation plan is divided into different phases. Phase One might be the physical cabling of the firewall device itself. Phase Two would be the logical setup, which means defining the interfaces and the virtual setup of the firewall itself. The final phase would be to bring it online in parallel with production, in a non-prod service, and test it to ensure it works as per the design.

A customer I'm working with right now was running with Check Point and they wanted to move to Fortinet firewalls. However, when I worked with them on the design to upgrade the existing Check Point firewalls, what we worked out was that even though the Fortinet might have seemed like a cheaper option, it didn't have the security capabilities that Check Point is offering. On that basis, the customer signed off on a project for upgrading their existing firewalls, on-premise and cloud, from R77.30 to R80.10.

It can be expensive, but it's value for money. What you pay for is what you get. You can go down in price and buy some cheap firewalls, but you're not going to get great support and you're not going to get the level of protection you need. With Check Point you get all of that.

With Juniper, one of the biggest downsides is support. The support portal is slow and I won't say the staff is competent in terms of understanding. They're very disconnected internally. What I mean is that the team working on the software development of the firewall has no interface with the support teams that are handling day-to-day TAC cases. They definitely struggle when it comes to understanding challenges, problems, and incidents with the firewalls.

In the past, Juniper firewalls were good, but recently the security offering has just not been there. They don't have anything like SandBlast from Check Point. They don't have up-to-date Zero-day attacks control. They're still running a very old architecture. They can do things like antivirus and URL proxy, but those are very simple features. They have none of the advanced feature set that Check Point has.

Palo Alto is very competitive with Check Point when it comes to security. However, one of the challenges with Palo Alto is that, overall, the solution can be extremely complex and expensive. That is one thing I've heard from customers again and again. Either they have existing Palo Altos or they plan to go to Palo Alto, but when they do a comparison with Check Point, what they find is that the overall value with Check Point is much greater than with Palo Alto firewalls.

If you're looking to implement Check Point as a security solution, definitely do your homework. Do some research, not just in terms of firewalls, but overall security architecture. Which ones are the leaders in the field? Which ones are there to deliver what they promise? And overall, how does the architecture work? Is it secure or not? And does it come from a team that understands how to support the solution itself? Are they consistent? Look at their track record for the past 10 or 15 years, or are they a new player? If they are, you don't know whether they're going to stay in the game or not. A good thing about Check Point is that its core product is security. They've been doing it day in and day out. You know they're there to stay in the game. You can trust them.

Check Point is a proven solution. A lot of customers and clients already rely on it. And for the Next Generation Firewalls, they're coming up with new features as security threats become known.

If somebody wants a secure and stable environment, Check Point is definitely the leader to go to; definitely the number-one choice. It's not only what it says on the box. In reality, I've worked with hundreds of banks and they're happy with the product because it works; in practice, it works. That's the main thing.

The biggest thing is the central management. It is quite good and allows us to manage the different firewalls from it. We can implement and configure many firewalls and push our policies to them as well.

One of the most valuable features is the antivirus. It's very good.

We also now support cascading objects. We didn't support this previously, but on Check Point we do.

The dashboard is quite good, you can explore a lot of features there and it's easy to understand.

It also gives us SSL inspection, which provides more effective mitigation of defects and data leakage.

The antivirus is not as effective as it could be because updates are not that frequent.

Another area for improvement is that certifications are quite expensive with Check Point.

I've been using the Check Point Next Generation Firewall for the last year.

My role includes working on Check Point and Cisco ASA firewalls to make changes on them, per customer requirements or as the organization needs. I also explore new features and do troubleshooting.

It's quite stable. Until now, we haven't faced any issues.

The Check Point 44000 and 64000 Next Generation Firewalls are designed to be quite scalable. 

If we do face an issue which is not our support boundaries, we involve the Check Point TAC. They're quite technical, so they help us to resolve things. They are always helpful. They're knowledgeable and their response time is very fast.

Previously we were working on Cisco ASA firewall which didn't support the cascading objects. Also, Cisco supports two gateways, whereas the Check Point supports up to five gateways.

We also decided to bring on Check Point because there are a lot of switches that are not supported in Cisco ASA. Also, with Cisco, IPS does not come with the firewall and we have to configure it separately. The Check Point IPS comes with it.

There are a lot of features which are not supported in the Cisco ASA Firewalls.

The initial setup of the firewall is straightforward. I didn't find any difficulties in moving from Cisco ASA to Check Point. The dashboard is quite friendly, so it didn't take much time to learn.

Deployment took about three days.

We have different stages in our implementation process like planning, approving, implementing, checking and validating, and the last one is matching. Job roles in our organization go according to these stages the approvals. I do the planning part and my approval request goes to my team leader.

We have about 400 to 500 users. They are semi-technical or non-technical people, such as network and security engineers, who are tracking and monitoring the firewalls. If we're talking about troubleshooting we have from different levels, like L1, L2, L3.

It's saving us a notable amount of time. 

Check Point is good. It has a lot of features which will support a lot of things in your organization, and the dashboard is quite good. There are a lot of features, such as data protection and data inspection, at a good price.

We use them to protect our edge infrastructure and for interconnecting our sites using the VPN.

One of the most valuable features is the data center object integration with Azure. We are using Azure a lot and there is very nice synchronization between the objects in Azure, and it's very easy to implement rules using this feature.

Other valuable features include: 

• the VPN — it's quite easy to configure it and it provides us with an easy way to interconnect our sites.
• the CLI, for automating things
• it is very easy to manage, to make backups, and to configure
• the support and the graphical user interface.

The NAT services part needs improvement. It's not sophisticated. It needs functions like range assignment for NATing. The way you assign a list of IPs for NATing is too simple. It just allows you to use pools.

There could also be improvement to the automation. They should provide a tool for creating and maintaining rules.

I have been using Check Point firewalls for more than five years.

The stability is an eight out of 10 because we have had some problems with URL filtering, with the domain filtering in particular. When the domain is under a CDN, it sometimes gives us problems because there is more than one IP for each domain.

We have also had problems with data center objects or Azure objects where we have created a rule and the rule stops working. We opened a case with Check Point and they answered us. We installed fixes and it looks like it's working now.

The scalability is quite nice at the firewall level. It gives us the possibility of implementing clusters and high-availability.

We are also working on an Azure implementation and it looks good. We have not yet deployed to the Azure Check Point implementation, but it promises a lot.

We have about 200 employees and, on the administrative side, there are 12 to 15 people working with the Check Point solution. They are mostly networking infra engineers. We are using about 40 percent of the firewall capacity. We don't currently have plans to increase capacity.

We are satisfied with the support. When we have a problem, it's very easy to contact the support center and they give a fast response. I would give their support a nine out of 10.

I have worked with the Cisco ASA firewalls and with firewalls from manufacturers like MikroTik.

It's hard to measure ROI, but our sense of security, as a company, is good with Check Point.

In terms of quality versus price, Check Point is very balanced.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Check Point firewalls is that if you know how to work with Linux, you will be able to manage almost all the features.

We recommend to clients who are installing applications that they can work with Check Point Next Generation Firewalls. Our role is to support our customers in terms of their migration, firewall room cleanups, and implementing all the security features that the firewall has.

Our clients have branch offices in Mexico and Bermuda. Check Point is one of the top names in these areas.

Our clients come to us to fix holes in their endpoint security management infrastructure, which might be letting things through like ransomware. We recommend Check Point Firewalls and some other endpoint security management solutions to mitigate these risk factors. We use this solutions to help build a perimeter for the company, as it helps filter threats from affecting our clients' infrastructure.

The application authentication feature of Check Point is the most valuable as it helps us keep users secure. 

It works smoothly when managing clients' on-premise and cloud firewalls.

Permissions from the client regarding troubleshooting and how well we can packet capture have not been smooth.

Check Point should quickly update and expand its application database to have what Palo Alto has. 

There have been some issues with third-party integrations.

I've been using Check Point Firewalls since 2012. This was right from the beginning when it was hardware from Nokia and the R65 and R66 models. So far, that has gone well.

They are stable. There are no standalone Check Point boxes. If a module goes down, it doesn't affect the base as a whole. Check Point Firewalls have nice redundancy.

Scalability is a good feature that this solution has. It is easy scale out and do site-to-site implementations. Sometimes, you have to clean the OS or RAM to free up availability. However, if you do this, then there are generally no issues with scaling it.

The documentation is really good. 

Their support guys response is really quick. Though, sometimes it takes them more than four to five to get back to us via email and acknowledge an issue. If you have the diamond support, it is definitely fast. However, if you don't have that sort of expensive after-sale support, then it is a problem to engage a Check Point technician at a very fast pace.

We actively participate in the community group.

Our clients are migrating over to Check Point NGFW from Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet because they want the Check Point Application Intelligence feature. 

We set up the management tool for the clients to manage all their infrastructure.

The migration is generally seamless and takes one shift or day (about nine hours).

We migrate clients to Check Point from other solutions. We also have situations where it's a clean install for deployment, which is the most common scenario.

We are working with Check Point Firewalls to provide installation, migration, updates, setup, etc. 

In the beginning, we needed help from the vendor with the setup. The support was good.

Our clients have seen ROI.

Cisco pushes clients to purchase their hardware, and this is not the case with Check Point. This helps to easily manage costs.

There are now more competitors in the market, like Palo Alto and VMware. 

Palo Alto is a bit more smooth and cost-efficient than Check Point. Palo Alto has Unified Threat Management (UTM) coupled with a dake lake database that is huge. Also, its migration is more smooth than Check Point's. 

Look for a software with licenses that support the features you want. I would recommend doing an RFP before purchasing. Get in touch with Check Point's sales team and compare it with other solutions.

Check Point features are always evolving. They try to stay abreast of the market. I would recommend not using older, obsolete models of Check Point because of this. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

The primary use of the firewall is to allow or block some traffic. Mainly, it is the perimeter firewall for the Internet. It filters the traffic from external to internal, e.g., to secure the traffic. 

Some of our customers have been demanding Check Point as their firewall product.

I do the installation, support, firewalls, etc.

It provides a central station where it is very easy to deploy our firewall policy in one click to many firewalls. This is one of the leading perks. It saves time by having one central station because I can deploy the same kind of policy to many firewalls at once. 

With the latest release, it's easy to configure firewall rules with the scripting. This is one of the features that we have been demanding for some time so we can script some actions for automation.

The best part is that it is very intuitive. It is easy to configure, deploy, and maintain. If it works, it works.

The troubleshooting: When you find something that is not working, it is very easy to check in the logs what is failing and fix it in a short time.

The login tool is really nice.

We can virtualize the physical firewall in a virtual environment. However, the virtual environment is not stable at all. We have some customers who are using the virtual environment feature, and sometimes it crashes. We have many tickets open and the response is not as good as expected. We have to wait months for a resolution.

If you use all the features available on the firewall, it's not working. If you keep it simple, then it works. When you try to do cool things, you start to have some problems because that kind of integration is not fully developed.

I have worked with Check Point since 2007.

When it is failing, it is a nightmare. The stability has room for improvement. Sometimes, it is not working at all.

The scalability is good. I haven't had any scalability issues. If the firewall gets stressed, we buy a new firewall.

There are many options, such as, virtualization. They have also release a new product, Quantum, that makes it possible to scale up and have more firewalls. 

As an integrator, we have very big companies (like banks) to small companies, who have only 200 users or less. 

I would rate the technical support as a six out of 10. I have customers with no tickets open with Check Point and other customers who have many tickets open.

Solving some issues with them is a nightmare. They don't reply in time. They always ask the same questions. I expect better feedback from them, but that usually never happens.

Before Check Point, I used Cisco and Fortinet FortiGate.

The big differences is really the full integration firewall, e.g., Cisco doesn't provide this. Also, the Check Point central console is so much better because it provides that one central station, which is a plus.

The con for Check Point is the stability. The hardware for Check Point fails more often than other vendors. Usually, other firewalls are more stable than Check Point so I don't have to open as many cases with other vendors, like I do with Check Point.

There are two parts:

1. In the physical, you deploy with a wizard, which makes it very easy. It is a standard wizard where you click "Next, Next," then you see the GUI and everything is done there.
2. It is possible to do it in automatic way with the scripting. In the cases that you have some experience on it, it's very easy to deploy some scripts and the firewalls. For example, in the cloud, I created my own firewall with the same setup every day using the auto-integration since it's possible to integrate Azure with Check Point, which is very easy. One of the best features of the Check Point is its integration with the cloud, because not all vendors have that kind of integration.

The deployment time depends. If I do any scripting, it takes 30 minutes. If I do it manually, the deployment takes two hours. It also depends on the size and scope of the deploy, e.g., if I create a basic firewall rule or do a full automatic migration. However, It does take less time than other firewalls.

The implementation strategy depends on the customer.

I can deploy one firewall in an easy way. I can do it quickly by equiping firewall rules in text mode or in the API. However, when I have a problem, it's totally the opposite. I lose a lot of time.

The pricing and licensing are the worst part of Check Point. I usually don't know what I really am buying. When I have to do an inventory of the license, I don't know what it is being used for. Sometimes I feel I am being cheated, and the others times, I feel it is a bargain. Nobody knows! Even the Check Point representatives, they aren't clear on somethings, such as, what is the right license for what I need.

There is a possibility to have diamond support. You can have a technical engineer who is there just for you. When you have that type of feature, it's more expensive.

Cisco NGFWv

• Check the price first. 
• For migrations between different vendors, it's a nightmare. You need to do some tasks manually, otherwise it doesn't work when you migrate it. 
• Check the performance if it is working as expected. 
• Try to keep it simple.

It is a good product. I would rate the solution as an eight out of 10.

We work with these firewalls for overall security, including content filtering.

High-capacity and high-capability devices help us to integrate with the cloud infrastructure as well as internet applications.

The most valuable feature is the URL filtering. 

It also gives us a single console for everything. Rather than having one device for URL filtering and a different device as a firewall, this gives us everything in one place.

It would help if they were easier to deploy, without needing more technical people. It would be nice if we could just give basic information, how to connect, and that would be all, while the rest of the setup could be done remotely.

I have been using Check Point NGFWs for six years.

They're pretty stable. I don't see any issues there.

Scalability means upgrading to newer, better hardware.

From an end-user perspective, everyone in our organization is using it, as it's a perimeter device. If they have to access the internet, they use this firewall to allow that access. We have about 4,000 end-users and about 200,000 concurrent connections.

Check Point's technical support is a seven out of 10. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to get the right people on TAC issues. And to buy time, they just use generic questions, which is really time-consuming and doesn't relate to the problem at all.

For the infrastructure in question, we have always used Check Point firewalls.

I have worked with Cisco ASA. Cisco is more CLI oriented, whereas Check Point is more GUI oriented. With the GUI, it's easier to manage and administrate it. If the configuration becomes bigger and bigger, it is really easy to see things in the GUI versus a CLI.

The advantage of the CLI is that you can create scripts and execute them. But the disadvantage is that they become so lengthy that it becomes very difficult to manage.

The initial setup is straightforward because it's a GUI interface. Even when it was upgraded, things didn't change in terms of the look and feel. It was still the same. There was no need to learn new things. It's easy for any administrator to learn new features.

On average, deployment takes one to two hours, including mounting and everything, from the physical work to moving the traffic there.

The issue is that we still need people to be onsite to do this because some tasks have to be done on the day. That means a technical person is required to do that work. We can't give it to any other person to do this because, until those particular steps are completed, things can't go any further.

We have six people, network admins, for deployment and maintenance because we have about 30 of firewalls.

We do it ourselves.

When we first started using them, we were just using them for basic functionality. Then we started using more features and introducing other components. For example, we had a different proxy server which we depended on. Once we got the Check Point, we could use the same device for multiple roles, which reduced the cost a lot. I would estimate our costs have been reduced by 30 percent.

If you use the features then it's cost-effective. Otherwise, it's expensive.