Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

We use Check Point Quantum Network Gateways for all our on-site firewalls. It protects the network edge, network core, data center, and our AWS direct connect. 

We are a payment facilitator and security is one of our core requirements. 

We have implemented VSX which enabled us to reduce the hardware footprint. 

We have implemented 6700NGFW, 6600NGFW, and 6400NGFW in different network segments. We have enabled basic firewall, ClusterXL, and IPS licensing. 

Due to the nature of the traffic, we do not use Application Control or URL Filtering.

With our previous firewall solution, we had no automated compliance tools. Now, with the Check Point Quantum Network Gateways, we have the ability to automate compliance reports for both GDPR and PCI3.2, and by using VSX (Virtual System Extension) we have reduced our data center footprint. This will lead us to become a more sustainable organization. 

We have found the central management (Smart Console) to be very helpful in managing all the firewalls and keeping the software/hotfix versions up to date.

By implementing VSX (Virtual System Extension), we were able to reduce our hardware footprint, reducing both direct and indirect costs. This also enables us to quickly scale up or down to meet business needs.

We have also found that the Intrusion Prevention System implemented on Check Point Quantum Network Gateways is robust, efficient, and very easy to implement. Being able to add it later as a software feature is a real boon. The customization options enabled us to zero in on our specific use case.

Due to our unique environment, we have to implement BGP on our firewalls, and the way that BGP is implemented on Check Point Quantum Network Gateways is not intuitive and requires additional custom configuration. This caused a significant delay in our migration. The way that NAT is implemented was also not intuitive and required additional custom configuration.

We have also run into an interface expansion limitation, and thus it would be helpful if products lower in the stack would offer more interface expansion options.

The solution has been in use for one year.

During the first year of operation, we have seen 100% up-time.

Due to the VSX implementation, I would conclude that it is highly scalable.

Customer service and support from the vendor have been excellent. They have assisted in communicating issues back to Check Point and the subsequent response from Check Point has been very good.

We used Cisco ASA 5500 series firewalls, but these have reached the end of life and needed to be replaced.

The initial setup and migration was complex and we had a vendor team assisting.

The expertise of the vendor team is excellent; I'd rate their services nine out of ten.

It is important to carefully consider your needs. Additional features can be activated easily - for additional licensing costs. However, opting for extended licensing can provide cost savings through discounts.

In looking at replacing the existing firewalls we considered Cisco, Palo Alto, and Check Point. 

Check Point Quantum Network Gateways offered us a more favorable price point without compromising on functionality.

Historically, the primary uses for these gateways were perimeter security and internet filtering. However, we now push all our internal traffic through the gateways for LAN segregation and to isolate obsolete operating systems.

Our isolated operating systems and LANs only allow specific traffic from a specific source to access them, making these critical production/business systems more secure. It's not a simple case of just replacing these legacy operating systems but replacing the industrial machinery that they control - which would require an investment of tens of millions of pounds.

Isolating obsolete operating systems wasn't in the scope when implementing the gateways originally. However, it has enabled us to secure Windows XP/Windows 7/2003/2008 machines which are end of support yet are still required to run industrial software and interface with large machines, which are not easy to replace.

Isolating machines and networks, along with SSL inspection, wasn't in scope when the gateways were spec'd. That said, five years later, they are still rock solid, and along with the Threat Cloud intelligence service, this ensures that our firewall is equipped with up-to-date threat intelligence, enhancing its ability to detect and mitigate emerging threats.

One of the strengths of Check Point Firewall lies in its granular policy management capabilities. We can define security policies based on a variety of criteria, including user identity, application, and content type. This level of granularity allows us to enforce security policies that align with our specific needs and compliance requirements.

One of the standout features of our Check Point Gateways is the user-friendly interface. Smart Console (management console) is well-designed and intuitive and provides administrators with a centralized hub for monitoring and configuring security policies. The web version isn't quite there yet, so to get the most out of it, the console needs to be installed, but it allows users to tailor it to their specific needs, and the menu structure is logical, making navigation a breeze for both novices and experienced administrators.

2FA on login would assist us with compliance however at the moment, it's not a major factor for us - yet may be in the future.

It would be nice to have comprehensive documentation and training resources that can help users and administrators better understand and utilize the full range of Check Point's capabilities. We ended up having to travel to London to sit through lots of training as we didn't find the information readily available.

Finding the costs associated with a particular blade can be challenging. This isn't specific to Check Point, but sometimes we need a ballpark cost quickly and don't have the time to speak to a reseller.

The company has been using Check Point gateways for around five years, myself about two years.

Hardware has been 100%; software has been slightly less as we had an issue where the gateways would failover. 

We run a pair of Gateways in HA mode, this solution has worked for us, and there have been no cases of downtime. Adding additional gateways should in theory be quite simple however for us there is no need.

Support has been quick to respond to any questions or issues.

Positive

The company used to sue Cisco Firepower. I wasn't with the company when switching.

The setup was straightforward; the implementation team went on the CCSA and CCSE courses.

We handled the setup initially in-house.

We ran these gateways for five years and will look to do the same with the replacements.

Work with Check Point's presale team and complete the scoping document. If you are an existing customer, use the CPSizeME. 

The company also evaluated Palo Alto.

We have run Check Point Security Gateways for five years and have had very few issues; they have been rock solid, and the hardware has been 100%.

Our company undertook a network transformation and instead of implementing a separate IPS solution, we've opted for the NGFW of Check Point. We've leveraged the different security blades available in the Check Point NGFW. Besides the IPS blade, we've also leveraged the anti-malware threat intelligence blades for our gateways, especially for the perimeter. 

We've also enabled the IPS blade for our remote offices as part of the additional security layer for our smaller international offices and used both the IPS and anti-malware for our bigger offices. 

We've managed to reduce the CAPEX cost of the network transformation when we leveraged the versatility of the Check Point NGFW solution. 

Instead of purchasing separate solutions for the IPS, anti-malware, and threat intelligence, the security blades of the Check Point NGFW were just enabled. 

The software subscription cost is already included in the annual software and hardware maintenance cost which made the solution more cost-effective than having separate solutions wherein we need to maintain a separate subscription for each. 

Besides the basic firewall feature of the Check Point NGFW, we find the IPS and anti-malware security blades to be most valuable for our current implementation.

The IPS and anti-malware solutions have successfully identified and blocked potential threats from our perimeter. 

Though we are also using threat intelligence, we see more validation of the successful use of the IPS an anti-malware. 

The successful performance of the security blades has shown the value of the investment along with the comparable success of leveraging the NGFW over a separate specialized security solution. 

Overall, we are satisfied with the performance of the NGFW both from the functional and operational perspective. The solution has been proven effective in detecting and blocking potential and intentional threats to the company's internal network without impacting the performance of the appliance. 

What can be improved though is the capability of providing an executive summary report that can highlight the performance and operational effectiveness of the implemented security solution. The current reporting capability needs to be parsed and edited to be appreciated by leadership.

We've been using Check Point NGFW for more than 4 four years.

Check Point NGFW has been very stable and very rarely do we encounter any performance issues due to hardware or software issues. 

The solution is very scalable and easy to manage.

Customer service and support are very responsive, and we get quick and fairly consistent turnaround times for the resolution. 

Positive

We previously used Cisco Firepower, however, we were not satisfied with its performance both functional and operational. 

The initial setup was straightforward since the deployment is just the typical high-availability active standby implementation. 

We implement through a vendor team. The vendor team is very competent and has consistently displayed their expertise in the technology. 

Unfortunately, our team does not have visibility on the ROI.

If the implementation would require multiple gateways, consider leveraging the Infinity Total Protection. 

We no longer evaluated other options. 

The customer purchased Check Point 6200 Firewalls to replace their aging Cisco ASA firewalls on the perimeter of their sites. The Cisco Firewalls must be replaced due to insufficient capacity.

It is envisioned that the initial migration will be a direct replica of the ASA configuration, with the client expanding the solution post-migration, with Check Point NGFW features.

This project consisted of the following deliverables:
• Rule base is migrated like for like, in which ASA Firewall zone-based rules will be converted to Check Point Parent/Child layered rules.
• Firewall zones to be imported and reviewed post migration by client.
• NAT rules will be migrated “as-is”.
• Geo-location rules from FTD will be honored and mapped into Check Point.
• Client-based blacklisting will be migrated into the solution, using external feeds via URL.
• A single IPS profile consisting of a clone of the vendor's “out-of-box” balanced profile (optimized).
• 1X site-to-site VPN.
• Integration into Client’s Cisco ISE solution for RADIUS-based admin authentication.
• NGFW licensing and blades to be installed on firewall devices, to allow features to be enabled in the future and expand the solution.

The Client wishes for the ASA firewalls to be replaced with a Check Point systems solution, which consists of 6200 Plus Appliances. 

The initial requirement was to migrate the configuration in an “as-is” state, with the necessary licensing purchased and installed to enable expansion of the solution with next-generation feature sets in the future.

The solution was able to meet and exceed the client's requirements thereby improving the client's environment.

The management server is software-based.

Firewalls and licensing include:
• FW
• IPS

The solution provides a single pane of glass management of rules/logging.

The solution supports IPsec tunnels FOR 1X IPsec VPNs.

The solution integrates with the client’s Cisco ISE RADIUS solution for administrative access.

The compute power of the appliance is great. The Check Point appliances are considered NGFW devices and can process both the ASA and FTD requirements on a single instance, removing the requirement for an expansion SSD module and/or additional hardware.

We'd like an option that can convert other vendors' NGFW configurations to supported Check Point NGFW config for ease of migration.

Check Point configuration options can be very enormous and overwhelming.
Check Point comes with a very lean learning curve even though they offer a robust knowledge base. 

A lot of configuration cannot be accomplished via the web interface or the smart dashboard software and must be done manually via the command line interface.

I'd like to see some built-in automation for the firewall alerts/events to trigger an automated response or recovery.

I've used the solution for three years.

The solution is stable with frequent version and management updates.

The solution is highly scalable and expandable.

The solution offers great customer support.

Positive

We used a different solution and needed more processing power and functionality which this had compared to industry competitors.

The setup was straightforward yet third-party device migration contained a lot of manual configuration conversions.

I implemented this myself.

Pricing can be relatively more expensive when compared to industry peers, however, the functionality makes up for the price difference.

We also evaluated:

• Cisco NGFW
• Fortigate NGFW
• Palo Alto NGFW

This is a great overall solution.

We use the solution for our data center firewall on-premises. We have deployed a VSX Cluster that currently holds three virtual firewalls. We have several site-to-site VPNs established with our partners and hundreds of policies applied. 

We had a custom configuration in our previous policy for which we were passing traffic from one VPN tunnel to another transparently. With Check Point we had to create a new virtual firewall in order to keep it working, so from one firewall we ended up with two rerouting traffic from one firewall to another and changing NAT in order to keep this solution running. 

Finally, we created another (third) virtual firewall and configured it to be only a remote access SSL VPN firewall and to be used as a backup if our primary in our HQ fails while the other two firewalls handle production traffic. 

We selected this solution in order to replace the Cisco ASA we used to have. 

The features the CP firewall has combined with a very attractive price led us to this decision. The migration was smooth and all the features we needed have been configured easily and worked as expected. Additionally, the SmartConsole and the Log Event viewer made our every day to day tasks easier. 

Also, we were provided with a trial license for the compliance blade and the IPS which are truly amazing. I believe that the compliance blade will be used soon by our company in order to assist with the ISO certificate we are trying to get. 

Since we have already deployed an AWAF on our premises we didn't use the IPS but the features presented definitely would increase the security level. 

Although we use it as our data center firewall, it would be ideal for our HQ Office with all the security features it provides.

I appreciate the Smart Console for its ease of use and clarity in managing configurations. It's user-friendly and free of software bugs. Smart Console simplifies the management of current policies and objects, making it effortless to track an object's usage or identify unused objects, thus ensuring a tidy configuration. 

Additionally, the hit count feature proves highly valuable, enabling policy prioritization based on usage frequency and facilitating verification of traffic alignment with newly created policies. Furthermore, implementing 2FA for SSL VPN users was a straightforward process, notably without the need for additional costs, unlike the FortiTokens required for our primary SSL VPN.

Additionally, the quick and seamless option to revert to a previous configuration revision is highly valuable. The logs tab serves as a helpful tool for troubleshooting. 

It's worth noting that we've experienced no CPU or memory issues, and the system is highly responsive.

The only downside is that we are not able to have redundant VPN tunnels with our cloud environments. We tried many guides suggested by the CheckMates community and have not been able to easily capture packets in a PCAP file as we used to do with the ASDM Packet Capture Wizard.

Finally, in the past year, we faced severe downtime that lasted many days due to a misconfiguration. Support wasn't able to detect it. We are allowed to add an automatic NAT in an object and install it in all three virtual firewalls that we have. I cannot imagine a real case that needs this option. This option should be totally removed. 

The destination MAC address for this object was flapping between the three virtual MAC addresses of the FW leading to a packet loss in our service up to 30%. Our manager found the root cause at the end.

I've used the solution for three to four years.

In the past four years that we have had Check Point, we haven't faced any stability issues. It is a stable solution.

Our cluster is oversized for our needs so we haven't reached any system limits in order to face an issue or at least observe its behavior. Our solution covers our current needs and can easily handle any additional load.

Technical support is average. From my last experience, it was my manager who found the root cause of the downtime. 

Positive

As noted earlier, our transition to this solution marked a shift from our previous Cisco ASA Cluster setup. Check Point's prominent position in the network industry and the compelling price point offered made it too appealing to overlook.

The initial setup and the configuration migration were done by an integrator who specializes in such migrations. It was complex enough yet very well-planned and organized.

The implementation was done by a very qualified vendor team.

Since I am in the engineering department, I can't evaluate the actual income or costs of handling our production traffic with this solution.

I'm not sure what was evaluated. It depends on the company's unique existing infrastructure and needs.

We evaluated offers for Cisco, Fortinet, and Palo Alto solutions.

We use it as NGWF for the DMZ area on our data center. 

We deployed HA configuration of Check Point Quantum 6200 to protect our user connection to the internet and to protect the server farm in our data center. 

In our first year, we got free access to the full capability of SandBlast, the Check Point solution for sandboxing features. We tested, yet felt the sandbox is not quite needed in our environment and thus changed the subscription for the second year and forward to the standard feature. 

Check Point can also be integrated with third-party solutions like SIEM and so on. 

Check Point has an awesome price-to-benefit ratio, netting you an awesome throughput of IDS/IPS capability compared to Palo Alto, Cisco, and so on. 

The first year also comes with a free SandBlast tier license, so you can test the full capability of Check Point to see if your companies might benefit from it or not. 

We also integrate our Check Point with SIEM Splunk and it integrates flawlessly without a hassle. If you are looking for a one-stop solution for cybersecurity, you should check out Check Point's portfolio!

The features we find valuable for our companies are:

- remote access VPN

- L4 and L7 firewall rules

- unified management platform provided by Smart-1

- management platform can be deployed on-premise or on the cloud

- full threat prevention by SandBlast

- support integration with 3rd party security vendors like Splunk, Qradar, etc

- high throughput for IDS/ IPS and NGFW only

- easy to scale up using Maestro

- built-in email security solution, endpoint protection, sandboxing, alert to administrator

The distributor support capability is quite lacking as the problem/incident is rarely solved on the distributor level and instead escalated to the principal. This makes the troubleshooting process too long and the people involved are too many. 

Socialization of new licensing or new features can be improved also. Principals and distributors need to work together closely to inform their customers so that we can stay updated about the latest trends and or threats/bugs that might happen in our Check Point gear.

We've been using Check Point for around two to three years. We use it primarily as NGFW and as sandboxing for zero-day threats.

Check Point is quite stable with new releases periodically throughout the year.

It is very easy to scale up or scale out and Maestro can improve the scalability a lot.

The response is quick and technical support gives clear answers.

Positive

We used Cisco Firepower and we felt that Check Point is more mature.

The initial setup is straightforward. The firewall and management setup is quite similar to other brands.

We implemented the solution through our in-house engineer.

We have witnessed ROI within four years.

Check Point provides quite reasonable pricing and licensing schemes.

We also evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet.

Check Point is great for comprehensive security solutions.

The solution is used for edge and interior firewalls. We use large-scale Check Points for our edge and have them set up in an active/passive cluster. For our internal firewalls at the remote sites, we use a virtual firewall for the OT DMZ, and then behind this virtual firewall, we have a physical appliance for the actual OT network. This allows us to fully secure the critical network yet still allow access via jump hosts or other remote management that we have approved. It also gives us excellent control over any north/south traffic.

Check Points is probably not the easiest or cheapest solution to use, however, we have never had any issues with their security and the technical issues we have had with them are few and far between. 

Most support calls for us are centered around how to best deploy a feature or why something is being blocked by a certain blade. This is one of the main reasons we continue to use them as they provide proven security for my company and the built-in blades generally always provide a benefit for us.

The central management and logging are frankly one of the top selling points. 

The actual management is perhaps a little confusing for a newcomer to Check Point - however, does not take very long to learn the basic ins and outs of. 

The logging capability of Check Point is excellent and very rarely have we wanted more. The logging is very fast and easy to use, and this makes finding items across all 80+ firewalls very easy. 

It is also easy to export all logs to our MSP since it is from a central point. The other built-in features are also helpful as it eliminates the need for some extra security appliances.

Lately, Check Point seems to be pushing new products too early. We have evaluated a few we thought may be useful to us yet were just not ready for enterprise use. Every company goes through this so hopefully, they will slow down and get the products up to speed and working better before trying to bring them to market. 

The current products that have been around for more than a few years generally do not suffer from this issue, however, their documentation does lag severely when a command changes or says the way to configure it changes. Support generally is up to date, but the KB articles are not always this way.

I've used the solution for 18 years at my current company, and another four at my previous company.

The stability is excellent.

Scalability is excellent, especially the newer products.

The technical support is mostly good. Their Tier 2 and higher engineers are excellent. Like any call center, however, their Tier 1 can be hit or miss. We use a third party for front line support so mostly never encounter anything less than Tier 3 since the only issues that get directed to actual Check Point support are already vetted out.

Positive

We used SonicWall. We switched due to wanting a more enterprise-quality product and previous experience.

The setup is complex, however, we knew this from the start so it was not unexpected.

We set up the solution mostly in-house. However, we were experienced with Check Point installs.

I have no visibility on ROI.

If new to Check Point, get pro services to help deploy it - especially if it is an advanced config. This will save huge amounts of time and grief. Once you have experience, pro services are generally not needed unless, again, you have no experience in that area.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We're an international research laboratory, focused on thermonuclear energy experiments. Due to strong remote collaboration, and to control network communication, we choose the Check Point NG Firewall solution.

Most of the personnel are researchers. We also have a strong collaboration with a University and take care of a European Ph.D. on thermonuclear fusion, as the future clean energy.

We aim to constantly improve firewall technology, which is a key strategy nowadays. We've chosen Check Point in 2007 and step-by-step upgrade and expand cyber security deployment using their solution. 

We appreciate the support and escalation when issues are in place. We really appreciate the solidity of the solution, the redundancy, we own a couple of appliances in failover. 

We use Check Point to grant VPN access both for clients and also in specific site-to-site IPSec remote connections.

I like the dashboard, redundancy, log analysis, threat prevention and ISP, and VPN.

The dashboard has clean and focused menus and tabs, that offer immediate access to important information and configuration. 

Log analysis is really powerful considering the enormous amount of logged data. 

We use a specific function to control bandwidth occupation based on protocols and IP subnetworks.

Fundamental is the interoperability with RSA SecurID, Windows AD/Azure.

We're in the process of moving to the MS O365 cloud, and Check Point helps us with this.

Maybe the VPN clients could be improved, however, only from a cosmetic point of view. They use a very old GUI and should help remote assistance in case of problems to make it more accessible in terms of getting log/debug information. On this, I suggest an approach like ZOOM US, where is clearly defined the application life cycle, and users warned over time.

We're in the process of moving to a cloud hybrid solution based on MS Azure, and on that field, quite common nowadays, it seems that more has to be done, moving from on-premise historical deployment. 

IoT should be considered in future development.

I've used the solution since 2007.

It is an absolutely stable solution. It is easy to put maintenance on an appliance without losing any connectivity.

The last release, R81, is impressive, at least in these first months, having recently upgraded from R80.

My experience is good, both on technical issues, and commercial support during renewal.

Positive

We previously used a Cisco PIX firewall.

The setup is somewhat complex, however, technical documents are clear, and the most common solutions are well described.

We implemented it with a third party and in-house. The support company that helped in Italy is fantastic.

We may need more time to measure ROI.

Check Point is not a cheap solution, however, on cyber security, we prefer to stay with a key player.

We constantly verify other vendor solutions, such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos.

We use Check Point Next-Generation Firewall as a perimeter firewall. This means that all incoming and outgoing traffic from our premises is routed through the Check Point firewall. Within our configuration, we have activated several security features and licenses, including the firewall itself, site-to-site VPN functionality, application and URL filtering, Identity Awareness, threat simulation, and anti-bot protection. Additionally, we possess the license for the NGpX version, which includes extraction capabilities.

With our previous firewall solution from a different vendor, we were limited to basic firewall functionality without features like IPS and content filtering. With the implementation of Check Point firewall, we got a comprehensive set of features that enables us to gain clear visibility into how our applications behave and which areas we have control over. It allows us to monitor and manage application usage effectively while allowing us to filter and enforce rules in accordance with our organization's security policies.

The most invaluable features we have are content filtering and application control. These features operate seamlessly, thanks to the integration of Identity Awareness. Through Identity Awareness, we established a connection with our internal LDAP server, which enables us to exercise complete control over user access. We can precisely determine who has access rights and who is granted permission, regardless of their connection point.

We implemented our firewall in a clustered configuration with two gateways. We faced some limitations with the Security Management Server (SMS) application. The SMS functionality is restricted as it only supports specific deployment modes on virtualization environments like Microsoft Hyper-V and VMware ESX and Open Server mode. Our organization utilizes a different virtualization setup, and we couldn't obtain assurance from the vendor that they would provide support if we deviated from their recommended deployment methods. That is why we had to deploy the SMS on a separate server, which introduced additional complexity. Improvement regarding the expansion of the SMS's compatibility to include various virtualization environments would be beneficial. Also, when attempting to enable SSL offloading mode, we faced functionality issues. This feature should be enhanced to ensure seamless SSL offloading, without negatively impacting the core functionalities such as HTTPS and content filtering.

I have been working with it for more than three years.

Its stability capabilities are impressive. We have not encountered any issues. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The scalability is relatively good, especially when considering its database capabilities. Our physical gateway hardware can comfortably handle up to nine units. When it comes to the monitoring appliance, such as the Check Point SMS (Security Management Server), it requires substantial resources. Due to limitations with supported virtual environments, we encountered challenges in expanding its capacity. I would rate its scalability 6 out of 10 since there is room for improvement in this area.

We chose the Pro Support option, which has allowed us to automate many of the Security as a Service (SaaS) functions. This means that whenever there's an error in the gateways' flow, an SR (Service Request) is automatically generated and promptly communicated. The support provided has been exceptionally efficient, with quick and responsive assistance. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

We previously used the Cisco ASA 5525X version, but we found that its management and performance capabilities were distinct. Cisco retired some of its features, and the replacement version offered came at a higher cost for the features it provided. Consequently, we decided to transition to Check Point, which offered us a more favorable price point without compromising on functionality.

The initial setup was easy. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The deployment process took approximately a week and a half, and about half of the challenges we faced were related to the physical connectivity issues on our end. Despite those hurdles, the deployment timeline remained relatively swift. One critical aspect for anyone planning to deploy this solution is to thoroughly understand where it fits within the network architecture and how it should be physically connected. This is especially important when implementing clustering, as the physical connectivity can become intricate. It's essential to consider high availability and compatibility with other devices it will connect to, such as core switches or perimeter routers. Ensuring that these devices support the desired failover and reliability modes is key to avoiding complications. The duration of the deployment also depends on the expertise of the person responsible for it. In our case, we opted for professional services, which included on-site configuration support. If the person handling the deployment is familiar with the surrounding devices and network environment, one individual may suffice. If there are connections to devices from different vendors, and the configuring expert lacks expertise in those areas, I would advise involving additional personnel with the relevant expertise to ensure a smooth deployment process.

It may be considered relatively expensive, but the investment is justified when compared to other competitors. Check Point's functionality and capabilities are notably strong. The cost of licensing can vary based on the prevailing exchange rates. In our case, we paid for the renewal in our local currency, but on average, it amounts to approximately $32,000 USD annually. I would rate it eight out of ten.

It is highly commendable for its stability and performance. When deciding on the appropriate licensing option, it's important to carefully consider your needs. Opting for two-year or five-year licenses can provide cost savings through discounts. After it is deployed, those with experience using other next-generation firewalls will find it relatively straightforward to manage. It doesn't require significant additional effort, and users with a basic understanding of next-generation firewall features can navigate through the management and rule settings easily. I would rate it eight out of ten.

My main use case for Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is that we use it for a perimeter firewall and separation firewall.

The best features Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) offers are that it's a good product with a lot of features and a great GUI interface to manage it.

The interface of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) stands out because in a single point, I can read all the logs of my device.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) has positively impacted my organization because it is our core security system, and it performs effectively.

At the moment, I haven't any ideas on how Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) can be improved.

I have been using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) for about ten years.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is very stable.

For our company, Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is scalable enough.

We reached out for customer support and received the correct support, the support that we needed.

Positive

Before Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW), we used an old Check Point firewall.

I don't have information on whether we have seen a return on investment with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

I don't know the price because I only made the technical decision, but I spoke about the price with my manager.

We stayed with Check Point and did not evaluate other options before choosing Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

I would rate Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) a nine out of ten because I think we can improve the product a little bit.

My advice to others looking into using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is that it is a good product and can solve a lot of security problems in your company.

My company does not have a business relationship with the vendor other than being a customer, as we are an end user.

I was offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

I prefer not to use my real name or company name when publishing my review.