Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

I use Check Point NGFW in my role as an Information Technology Security Engineer. We have implemented it for our customers and use it ourselves.

Fortinet is easier to set up due to its understandable interface and ability to connect to the CLI directly from the web interface without needing an external SSH client.

Check Point NGFW should improve its user interface to make it more user-friendly and intuitive. Additionally, the issue with link selection on VPNs needs to be addressed.

I have been familiar with Check Point NGFW for around two years.

Overall, I am satisfied with the stability of Check Point NGFW.

I am satisfied with the scalability of Check Point NGFW.

We have an engineer who is certified to work with Check Point, and I am satisfied with their technical support.

We have an engineer who is certified to work with Check Point.

I am not dealing with the pricing of Check Point products since I am a technician, not a seller or buyer.

I proposed Check Point, Fortinet, and Juniper to our customers. Fortinet is popular for its ease of use and cost-effectiveness.

I would recommend Check Point NGFW even if the customer doesn't have a Check Point infrastructure.

I'd rate the solution nine out of the ten.

We utilize the Check Point NGFW to segregate our environment, separating our network to filter traffic between segments. Additionally, we leverage its features such as IPS, antivirus, and more, making it the foundation for all the Check Point features we use.

Check Point enables us to secure all our networks by segregating the different areas of our network. It also allows us to view logs of all traffic crossing the various areas. Through the firewall, we can access logs and evidence of activity between our areas, whether within or from the data center to the Internet.

We like the way it protects our network, how easy it is to see and filter logs, and how easy it is to manage next-generation firewall policies.

The upgrade process for Check Point NGFW is not very simple, making it difficult to find the resources needed for the upgrade compared to competitors like Fortinet. Fortinet makes the upgrade process much more manageable. 

Check Point should start working on a new, more straightforward process. Perhaps a graphical interface where you can just click to initiate the upgrade, and it will automatically replace the nodes, starting with the secondary node in a cluster and then upgrading the primary node. This would make the process automatic with just one quick action, similar to what we see in competitors like Fortinet.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for ten years.

We're encountering some issues with the Check Point NGFW. They've stopped communicating with the manager, and sometimes, we cannot push policies from the manager to the FortiGate and Check Point. The latest versions we've been working with, especially the Check Point software, haven't been very stable.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten.

There are performance issues with certain Check Point NGFW models, particularly when enabling multiple features. These issues are often related to CPU utilization, causing some traffic to slow down. Competitors like Fortinet offer greater scalability than Check Point. In equivalent models, Fortinet performs better with lower CPU usage for the same amount of traffic. However, it's worth noting that Check Point excels in traffic inspection and detecting malicious activities. 

While Fortinet may offer better performance, Check Point provides superior security capabilities. Check Point's scalability is not as efficient, as it consumes more CPU when handling higher traffic volumes. Therefore, if speed is a priority, Fortinet may be a better option, but for comprehensive traffic inspection and security, Check Point remains a strong choice despite its scalability limitations.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

The support engineers sometimes lack sufficient knowledge, making it very difficult to receive a prompt response to our problems. Sometimes, we need ten remote sessions with them before they assign someone capable of resolving the issue. They start escalating only after we complain to the managers. When we open a case, we are assigned a junior staff member who requests information, resulting in lengthy delays in communication.

Neutral

The initial step is much more complex than other methods. The integration process will be a bit simpler. It takes two days. You need to start by configuring the management IPs, then proceed to establish the connection to the manager using what they call the sync password. Finally, you need to start creating the policy that you want to use.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is expensive compared to Fortinet.

AI is more commonly utilized on the vendor rather than the client side. Therefore, they employ AI to enhance their product and understand and detect more threats that require attention, albeit with a turnaround time.

One should opt for Check Point if they have engineers or partners with expertise in Check Point because it's not the easiest product to work with. It's much simpler for someone who has never worked with Check Point or Fortinet to start with Fortinet, which is much easier to manage. However, if you possess the knowledge of the security blades in Check Point, they are superior to those in Fortinet, with the IPA.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the tool as a data center firewall. Some of our customers use it as a perimeter firewall. We are only using the security gateway.

The product is flexible. I like the product’s performance and throughput.

The cost of add-on features is too high.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

The tool is stable. We haven’t faced any issues after configuring and putting it in production.

We have roughly 7000 appliances. The tool is scalable. I like the scalability of the solution. We have 10 to 20 customers.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

The pricing is moderate. The license cost is good. However, some features like VPN are costly.

We use the solution for our clients. My recommendation depends upon the requirements. I do not recommend the product for an SMB. I recommend it for enterprises. It has good performance and throughput. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

Our primary use of Check Point NGFW is for network protection.

The most valuable feature of Check Point NGFW is it is a complete solution for protecting not only the network but the applications. Additionally, it provides a hybrid cloud solution.

The whole solution has room for improvement.

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

The solution is very stable.

Check Point NGFW has been scalable.

I would rate the technical support of Check Point NGFW a seven out of ten.

The installation is straightforward.

We have one staff member that does the implementation of the solution.

I would say that the customer has to implement Check Point NGFW with the reseller. They have experience in the implementation and with security.

I rate Check Point NGFW a ten out of ten.

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.

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.

We use the product as a firewall solution for application control, defined rules and policies, and insights features.

The platform helps our organization to save working hours.

Check Point NGFW is easy to configure.

The product's technical support services need improvement.

We have been using Check Point NGFW for two years.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable platform.

The technical support team could include skilled engineers to understand the issues and respond.

Neutral

We have used Fortigate before. In comparison, Check Point NGFW provides a more detailed configuration.

The initial setup is easy and takes 20 minutes to complete.

The product provides value for pricing in terms of performance and technical features compared to other firewalls.

I recommend Check Point NGFW and rate it a nine out of ten.

We primarily use Azure DevOps for source control with Git, CI/CD pipelines, and project management using Azure Boards, and it's pretty much the core of our development workflow.

The flexibility of the pipelines in Azure DevOps is impressive; we can customize them to fit our specific needs and integrate with a lot of different tools, while Azure Boards is helpful for keeping track of everything, though it does take some getting used to.

The integrations with other tools in Azure DevOps are generally seamless; we use it with Slack, Jenkins, and a few other tools without any major issues, and the API is well-documented too, which makes custom integrations relatively straightforward.

My experience with Azure DevOps shows it's a very powerful platform; it's helped us streamline our development processes significantly, and I would definitely recommend it.

When using Azure Boards, it's feature-rich, which can be overwhelming at first; there's a learning curve to understanding all the different functionalities and customizing the workflows to fit our processes.

The pricing of Azure DevOps can be complex; it's not always easy to figure out exactly how much you're going to end up spending, and occasionally the UI can be slow, but that's not a frequent problem.