Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point Harmony SASE (f...
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (7th), Firewalls (16th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (7th), ZTNA as a Service (5th), ZTNA (2nd), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (7th)
MetaDefender
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
29th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (34th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (32nd), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Anti-Malware Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Anti-Malware Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81)0.7%
MetaDefender1.8%
Other97.5%
Anti-Malware Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Nasseer Qureshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Pre Sales Consultant at Redington Group
Delivers seamless and secure remote access while enhancing security posture
Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers strong features, but there are areas that could be improved. One area for improvement is integration with third-party identity providers. It works with standard SAML and SSO, but we would prefer deeper integrations with solutions such as Ping for more advanced identity-based policies. Additionally, a mobile-specific client or lightweight agent would be helpful for securing access from smartphones, especially in BYOD environments. We would appreciate more granular reporting and analytics, including better drill-down capabilities to investigate specific users or app activity. The logs are comprehensive, but filtering them can sometimes feel messy. The user interface on the management portal could be more intuitive, especially when managing multiple sites or remote offices. Some of the policy configuration steps are nested and could be streamlined.
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The Zero Trust and segmentation have helped my team and our customers significantly because we are able to protect every scope and allow the work-from-home users to access internal resources while passing through a threat prevention gateway, ensuring that everything is safe."
"It connects quickly and stays connected. The user interface is pretty neat too. The app has in-house support with user guides that give you step-by-step walkthroughs on navigating the app. In addition, there is a live chat feature that offers prompt assistance on the go."
"It's improved the security of every single OS in the organization as well as the visibility and security capabilities."
"The solution provides us with an easy way to configure and join the VPN with Perimeter 81."
"Its most effective feature is controlling employee access to specific applications. I can manage and monitor every step of the access process."
"We were able to implement Perimeter 81 within an hour with all the required services (SSO) and infrastructure (GCP and SaaS applications)."
"The characteristics that I have liked the most are the ease of implementation and administration."
"The feature that I have found to be most valuable is the reputation that the company has regarding privacy. Nowadays, this is critical, especially when you do all of your work online."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
 

Cons

"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"Check Point Harmony SASE needs improvement as it is a very new product that lacks very basic features, and it can start working more with the customer for better implementation."
"The solution requires you to buy a minimum of 50 licenses and that is not practical."
"Branding could be better."
"Branding could be better."
"If Harmony SASE supported bidirectional traffic and the UDP protocol, it would be better."
"I don't know if it is technically feasible, however, if the Desktop App could be used as a Web App or a Chrome Extension it would be very nice."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Regarding pricing, I can say that the more the number of users, the less they have to pay."
"The solution's pricing model may not be suitable for smaller companies, as they might find it expensive. Larger companies tend to receive more value due to many users."
"I consider the product to be a medium-priced solution. There are no additional costs attached to the tool."
"Annual licenses cost $30 to $40 each."
"Overall I am very happy with the solution’s flexibility and pricing."
"The product is reasonably priced."
"The cost of the solution's licenses depends on the particular use cases."
"I would rate Harmony Connect's pricing at six out of ten. It wasn't particularly expensive, but it wasn't super cheap either."
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Anti-Malware Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business53
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Harmony Connect?
The product's initial setup phase is very simple.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Harmony Connect?
I am not aware of the pricing, setup cost, and licensing, but I would say the setup cost is our resource, and we have invested many hours into this project.
What needs improvement with Harmony Connect?
When I'm raising a ticket for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81), it's a bit technical for non-technical people. It could have been clearer and easier for them to raise a ticket becau...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MetaDefender?
The pricing of MetaDefender is about hundreds of dollars. If I remember correctly, when someone attempted to buy from us one instance of OPSWAT, it was about nine thousand dollars for multi-scannin...
What needs improvement with MetaDefender?
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaD...
What is your primary use case for MetaDefender?
I have used MetaDefender for one and a half years, deploying it in different environments and managing a team of professional services that deploy MetaDefender products in customer environments. I ...
 

Also Known As

Check Point Quantum SASE
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aqua Security, Cognito, Multipoint, Kustomer, Postman, Meredith
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs. MetaDefender and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.