Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

I use Check Point NGFW for controlling traffic and controlling access to the production server. It is a HA (high availability) environment. It is easy to use failover solutions.

We use it on our disaster recovery (DR Site) and it runs smoothly.

In the office, Check Point Infinity is the only fully consolidated cybersecurity architecture that protects your business and IT infrastructure.

Integrating the most advanced threat prevention and consolidated management, the security gateway appliance is designed to prevent any cyber attack, reduce complexity, and lower costs.

Check Point gateways provide superior security beyond any Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW).

Best designed for network protection, these gateways are the best at preventing the fifth generation of cyber attacks.

Overall, for us, it improves the private cloud security and helps to prevent the spread of threats while consolidating visibility and management across our physical and virtual networks.

The most valuable feature is the next-generation firewall (NGFW) protection.

Check Point has long been a leader in the firewall market. It offers Quantum Security Gateways for a wide range of use cases and CloudGuard FWaaS and cloud security products too. NSS Labs scored Check Point just behind Palo Alto in security effectiveness and ahead of Palo Alto in TCO. Check Point’s management features are among the best in the business, but SD-WAN capabilities are lagging.

A firewall rule is the same on all systems, and I am very happy with the correlation and the display of the rules.

From the logs, you can trace back to the rule with a click, which makes it easy to investigate cases. It is also easy to search the log.

They have few predefined reports and it would be nice to increase them since the logs are excellent.

They should be quicker to release fixes for known vulnerabilities, including those related to Microsoft products.

If you make a mistake when creating rules, it is time-consuming to fix them. However, there is no problem with traffic processing. 

Sometimes you are forced to interact on several different levels. On the one hand, you put the rules in, and on the other, you put in the route. 

I have been using Check Point NGFW for between five and six years.

They have a good support team that is fast to respond. However, there are open cases that should be resolved in a more timely fashion.

We used another solution prior to this one, but the updates were too slow and it was harder to monitor the log.

The initial setup is very hard.

The vendor implemented this product for us.

This product is a good investment and I expect a full return in approximately three years.

The price of the appliance should be decreased.

 I evaluated several other solutions and compared them before choosing Check Point.

This is a product that I recommend.

We use Check Point NGFW for perimeter protection of our network from the internet. We also use it for threat protection at the network level and the endpoint level.

We provide implementation, installation, and support services. We know about all types of firewalls, and we work with all types of installations. We usually use appliances, but in test environments, we use virtual appliances.

It is easy to use, and its management is the best. Check Point has a great unified management solution for firewalls and security products. 

Their technical support can be better. In addition, when we need to use it in a government environment, we face a lot of legal issues related to different types of certifications. It would be better to improve it for these issues.

Check Point doesn't have a SOAR system. They work with Siemplify, but it is an integration with another vendor. It would be great if Check Point has an integrated SOAR system.

We have been dealing with Check Point firewalls in our company for more than 20 years.

It is quite stable, but it can vary based on the version.

It is scalable. We can use the Maestro solution from Check Point for scalability. We can add new appliances as the company grows. If we need more performance and throughput, we can add additional appliances and have more performance. Check Point Maestro is the best solution for scalability.

Their technical support can be better.

Its initial setup is easy for me. The deployment duration varies. A simple deployment takes two or three days. A complex deployment that involves a cluster configuration or appliance replacement can take up to five days.

Its price is reasonable. If we compare its TCO for three years, it is more reasonable than some of the other vendors such as Fortinet, Palo Alto, etc.

I would recommend this solution. It is a great solution for endpoint protection and threat prevention. I have been working with Check Point products for a very long time. Check Point is one of our best vendors, and they make great products. 

I would advise others to learn about firewalls and other Check Point solutions. They have a lot of different solutions. If you choose their firewall, it would be useful to know more about other solutions. It would be one of the ways to improve the protection of your network with Check Point.

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

We use this solution for perimeter security and data center security.

On the firewall side, the security efficacy is good. The interface for application filtering and application-based policies is also good. They have good roadmap on the cloud as well.

This solution requires management software that is sold separately; it's actually a different appliance altogether. For smaller customers or smaller environments, this becomes an added entity in the environment. Not to mention, they'll also have to invest a lot in the necessary management stations. If that came built-in, it would really benefit smaller businesses. 

The performance when you enable decryption could be improved. That's a CPU-intensive task. Many customers struggle if they try to implement decryption — it can really hamper the performance. It's probably something to do with the appliance or the hardware design. This needs to be examined further.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for roughly five years. 

This solution is quite stable. Performance-wise, I have seen customers using this solution for years without issue. 

There are different models available. Sizing can be done accordingly. They have a good range of versions available for small to large data centers. So, scalability is definitely there. 

As I am not an end-user, I haven't really had any contact with support. Still, none of my customers have had any complaints regarding support.

The initial setup was fairly easy. Still, compared to other vendors, the learning curve is a bit complex. 

Compared with Palo Alto and Cisco, the price of this solution is quite fair. Compared to Fortinet and other vendors, it's probably a little bit on the higher side. Really, it all depends on what you get at the end of the day.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. 

I would definitely recommend this solution. It's a good platform for perimeter security. In an enterprise, you need good security. There's endpoint security, network security, and cloud security. Check Point's strongest point is network security; they still need to catch up on endpoint and cloud security. If you're interested in integrating all of these tools, then there are better products available. However, as far as network security is concerned, Check Point is really good.

We primarily use this product for cloud computing security. It is an integration platform for IPS and I also use it for performance monitoring.

I also coach classes on the use of this firewall, which is installed on my personal laptop.

This product is more secure than other firewalls, such as FortiGate.

The information stored in the logs is very descriptive and includes a lot of details.

The dynamic port features are better when compared to other firewalls.

This firewall is difficult to manage and use when you first begin using it. However, once you are used to it, the interface is comfortable and easy to use.

The Smart Control feature is hard to install.

In the future, I would like to see more features in the unified security management platform.

This is a reliable firewall.

Scalability is not an issue with Check Point.

Technical support from Check Point is good.

I have experience with other firewalls including FortiGate. Check Point is more secure, although it is more difficult to deploy and configure.

Until you have some experience, the installation and configuration are difficult.

The licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis and I am happy with the pricing.

Check Point is responsible for inventing several firewall security features.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it because it the most secure firewall on the market.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for the VPN, from site-to-site and remote.

We also use it for advanced IPS, IDS, malware protection, and the sandbox. The sandboxing functionality is one of the best features.

All of the features are very valuable, but the most valuable features are the sandboxing and the advanced IPS/IDS.

The web filtering and CLI commands need to be improved. 

The CLI command is very difficult to deploy. 

If you are an engineer and considering configuring through the command line, you can't. The command line is very difficult to use, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of this solution.

The initial setup could be simplified.

Technical support is another big drawback and needs to be improved.

In the next release, there should be improvements made to the sandboxing functionality.

It's a very reliable solution. There are no issues with the stability of it.

Currently, Check Point NGFW is the most scalable firewall on the market.

We have more than 500 users in our organization.

We will continue to use this solution and we plan to increase the sandboxing feature, which is the best feature of Check Point.

The technical support is not good, which is the biggest drawback to Check Point. They will never compare to Cisco. Cisco's technical support is the best.

I have also used Cisco, which is more expensive but the support is better.

The initial setup was very complex.

It can take 20 to 30 days to deploy to the network.

It is less expensive than Palo Alto.

Licensing is on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing.

I also considered the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall. I evaluated this solution and compared the price.

We chose Check Point because the price for Palo Alto is very high.

If you are looking for deep security and have a good budget for security and firewalling then I would recommend Check Point, as it will meet the requirements.

Every product has its drawbacks and advantages, but I am very happy with this solution. In my opinion, this is the best firewall in the market at the current time.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I'm a consultant at a Check Point partner. I have deployed a lot of Check Point firewalls and support Check Point firewalls for our customers. Our customer environments are different. I have deployed standalone, cluster, and two-layered firewalls.

Check Point firewall products include a lot of modules including Application Control, IPS, Email security, Mobile access, Content Awareness, URL Filtering, Antivirus, Antibot, and DLP. 

Check Point meets our customers' requirements at the perimeter with an all-in-one solution. For example:

• The IPS blade prevents attacks with updated signatures.
• URL filtering policy control customers' users' internet activity.
• Antivirus and antibot blade controls malicious activity and files.
• Mobile access blades allow customers to access their sites from anywhere securely.

There are a lot of features that I have found valuable for our customers.

For example, active/active and active/standby high availability features are very useful. If you want to share traffic loads to both cluster members, you can use the active/active feature, whereas if you don't want to share traffic loads then you can prefer active standby. Your connections sync on both cluster members for either highly available choice, so your connections never lost.

One of the most valuable features is performance improvement, wherewith ClusterXL and CoreXL, you can improve performance.

Check Point should include additional management choices; for example, Check Point does not offer full management support via browser.

You should use Check Point Smart Console for management, although it is an EXE and is supported only on the MS Windows platform. If you are using Linux or Mac, you cannot manage Check Point. Instead, you need to use a virtual PC with the Windows OS installed, running inside Linux or Mac. Check Point states that this is a decision made for security reasons, but that certain management features can be done through the browser, although not fully.

I have been using the Check Point firewall for more than 20 years.

This solution is very stable for all of our customers.

One of our customers has more than 200 branch offices, which are protected by Check Point SMB appliances. All of these appliances are managed by Check Point SmartProvisioning. This customer has one Check Point cluster that secures server segments and another Check Point cluster to secure the client segment.

The latest product, Maestro is very good and scales well.

Check Point support is very good and we are very satisfied.

My company is working with different firewall products but I am a Check Point expert and only support their products.

The initial setup is straightforward.

All implementation is handled by our team.

There are different ROIs for each customer but our customers' ROIs are high, as expected.

The pricing is high compared to competitors.

Our customers evaluate other products but a lot of them prefer Check Point.

We use this firewall to protect the internal network and to set up the IPSec standard from one location to another.

One of the benefits that we have realized from using this product is that the user interface makes it easier to operate, compared to using the CLI.  In Check Point 5.0, we bought the option, giving us the ability to use the GUI as well as the CLI. A person who is comfortable with the UI can work with it according to different scenarios.

The most valuable feature is the set of encryption options that are available.

Viewing the logs in the interface is easy to do, which is one of the things that I like.

This is a UI-based firewall that is easy to use.

The antivirus feature is a little bit weak and should be improved. The updates are not as regular when compared to other firewalls, such as Palo Alto.

The training materials and certification process should be improved. For example, the certificates are more expensive and there's no good training available on the internet right now.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for approximately seven years, since 2014.

The stability of this firewall is good and we haven't had any problems. It is a well-known, quality brand.

There are no issues with extendability or scalability. Over the course of a year, we added another firewall, bringing us from one to two deployments, and the process was not tough. We were easily able to manage it.

We have approximately 12 people who work with this firewall during different shifts.

I have been in contact with technical support many times, and they are good. Most of the time, they solve the problem as soon as possible, and they give a perfect solution.

Currently, we are using firewalls from different vendors, including Palo Alto and Cisco. Our Cisco ASA solution is completely CLI-based and Palo Alto is like Check Point with an interface that is a mix of UI and CLI-based.

Both Palo Alto and Cisco ASA have very good tutorials available on the internet, including videos on YouTube and courses on Udemy.

On the other hand, Cisco ASA is more difficult to use because there is no UI and for a person who does not have any knowledge of the networking commands, they have to learn them.

The first phase of the implementation is to plan the firewall deployment. After that, we do the configuration and validate it. In the case of a Check Point firewall, this process will take between two and three months to complete.

The complexity of the process depends on the features that you want to add. In general, it is straightforward and not too complex.

I was not present when the first firewall was set up, although I was presented for the deployment of new ones. Whenever there is a new firewall deployment, I am involved. We have between four and five network engineers who take care of this part.

There is no maintenance required from our side. When we have a hardware issue then we contact technical support to get it sorted out.

We have seen ROI; for the purpose that we have deployed this firewall, we are getting returns. Based on this, we are buying more Check Point firewalls.

The price of Check Point is lower than Palo Alto but higher than Cisco ASA. For us, the price for licensing is fine, we have no issue with it, and feel that the cost is justified.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Check Point NGFW is that if they get stuck, then visit the technical support section of the website and read the articles that are available. I have learned many things from the tech articles, and it's a good website if you want to learn about it in-depth.

One of the things that I learned is that Check Point firewalls also use Linux commands. After working with Check Point, I improved my Linux skills, which is a good thing for me.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The main use case is Firewall provisioning and integration with Tufin and Skybox. Also, we focus on firewall compliance, rule review, VPN configuration, and network troubleshooting.

Working for one of the largest companies, I found that using Check Point has made firewall provisioning very easy for us, and integration with the above-mentioned tools has eased the process of PCI audit, security compliance, and rule recertification.

I think the VSX has been the most valuable feature for us. We use it for tunnel management, which is great. The configuration has been quite straightforward.

Debugging could be improved when compared to the competition.

I think the product release lifecycle should be improved.                                                       

We have been using Check Point NGFW for almost eight years.

Previously, we used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the fact that Check Point offers more stability and visibility into the firewalls. Management is easier, especially using the GUI version.

I think that the pricing is different for every organization.

We did evaluate Juniper, as well.