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

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs SonicWall Netextender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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 Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
7th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (6th), Firewalls (13th), Anti-Malware Tools (6th), ZTNA as a Service (4th), ZTNA (3rd), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (5th)
SonicWall Netextender
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
13th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is 2.7%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonicWall Netextender is 3.3%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81)2.7%
SonicWall Netextender3.3%
Other94.0%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

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.
Rich Darress - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Operating Officer at Darress Tech
Has provided secure remote access to multiple client networks with consistent performance
When buying the appliance itself, there is one downside that isn't exclusive to SonicWall. When you apply all the security settings, many people have one gig connections for internet ISP. If you're bringing in a one gig connection, you have to have a more robust SonicWall to handle that throughput with all your security settings turned on. It gets pretty pricey upfront if you're bringing in a one gig connection. If the customer starts with a two, three, four, or 500 meg connection and has a small unit, they have to replace the whole box when upgrading to a gig, so scalability there is atrocious. However, this issue exists with pretty much any appliance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a very stable solution."
"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."
"Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) has positively impacted my organization by leading to overall security improvements, especially for our VPN users."
"Now that we use Harmony Connect, the files are inspected and we are sure that no malicious content is inside the company."
"Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) has positively impacted my organization by being very easy to integrate with other technologies, and it's not impactful on the traffic, so it can do its job without being heavy on the traffic."
"Its software solution also ensures connectivity and protects against NSF filtering."
"The best key features of Harmony are stabilization, private access, and Internet access."
"I rate the overall product as ten out of ten."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"It allows us to work remotely."
"The product has two-factor authentication."
"The solution provides high availability."
"The best features of the SonicWall Netextender were its ease of use."
"My company opted for this solution because it can individually perform. Basically, we don't require load balancers and all those additional feature sets or additional devices that might be required. The solution can handle the certificate, DNS queries, and all that stuff individually."
"It can support multifactor authentication. Also, it is a very basic application."
"The most valuable feature for the Netextender is the ease with which we can integrate it with SAML."
 

Cons

"One of our challenges is ensuring the security of our cloud-based operations."
"The tool could be more user-friendly."
"If Harmony SASE supported bidirectional traffic and the UDP protocol, it would be better."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"It would be nice to have a notification sound when Perimeter81 disconnects, as I sometimes don't notice when the icon shows that it's disconnected, and I end up wasting time waiting for my browser to load a page that shows an error, usually error 404."
"Harmony lacks this ability when anything more than a vanilla access policy is used (we use layers and source user objects in our policy which make this impossible according to Check Point)."
"When I'm raising a ticket for Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81), it's a bit technical for non-technical people."
"Zero Trust Network Access can be a security breach if not used correctly."
"The only concern I do have is with the zero trust, and the solution is not coping with the newer technologies as much as it needs to do on that particular factor."
"In future releases, introductions of AI features would be really helpful."
"The Netextender application itself doesn't really look pretty, however, we can still use it. We don't care what it looks like. That said, if they did a cosmetic update, that would be fine."
"Sometimes you can get bounced around through the departments until you find the right one. Sometimes if you don't have the most current support contract or your license is out of date, they won't even talk to you."
"There must be a multi-factor authentication enabled or integrated by default with it in order to be integrated with NetExtender."
"If the customer starts with a two, three, four, or 500 meg connection and has a small unit, they have to replace the whole box when upgrading to a gig, so scalability there is atrocious."
"The product does not work well."
"The UI could be a little better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of Check Point is relatively high when compared to other competitors like Palo Alto and Fortinet. While Palo Alto may be on the higher side in terms of cost, Check Point's pricing is similar to that of Fortinet. In some cases, Check Point offers better value for the features it provides. We initially considered other options but ultimately decided to purchase hardware that came with three years of iOS. This approach eliminated the need for any additional costs associated with Check Point. I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"Perimeter 81 charges separately for gateways and VPN connectivity, but compared to Azure, it seemed more reasonable."
"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."
"The solution is priced appropriately considering its uses. For an essential license, a user pays only 30 USD per month. For an enterprise version, the prices can be negotiated with the company."
"The product is neither cheap nor expensive."
"Regarding pricing, I can say that the more the number of users, the less they have to pay."
"The cost of the solution's licenses depends on the particular use cases."
"The pricing is good, especially when you compare it to other firewall or UTM solutions from FortiGate or SonicWall, where you would have to invest about four hundred thousand rupees for 100 users over a three-year period."
"The solution is cheap itself, not too costly."
"Compared to others, it is cheaper. When we compare it with Palo Alto, Check Point, or Fortinet, it is a little cheaper."
"Cost wise, it would be a few hundred dollars for the base appliance with the first five clients. Then from there, your cost per seat depends on how many you're getting. It's a one-time cost, and then you have a few hundred dollars a year for the maintenance contract once you get the one-time seat costs out of the way."
"The solution has a pretty good price."
"After a certain number of users, you require extra licensing."
"You have to pay for its license. There are some other companies that provide a VPN client for free. When you buy NetExtender, its license is available for one, three, or five years."
"The price of SonicWall Netextender is reasonable. Whether it's a small shop with only five users or a larger operation with 130 users, we have received no complaints or objections regarding cost from any of the clients we are looking to deploy it with."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business53
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
 

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?
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 product is lack...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SonicWall Netextender?
The pricing for my experience with the setup cost and licensing of SonicWall Netextender is fair. The Netextender itself has no cost. It's the SSL licensing that is attached to the SonicWall. It us...
What needs improvement with SonicWall Netextender?
SonicWall Netextender has not helped with compliance, as it is not applicable for what I'm doing. I've put several feature requests in over the years and they've implemented them all, so it current...
What is your primary use case for SonicWall Netextender?
Getting to local resources on a customer's network is my main use case with SonicWall Netextender or SonicWall SSL-VPN. As a managed service provider, all my customers have SonicWalls and I get int...
 

Also Known As

Check Point Quantum SASE
No data available
 

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. SonicWall Netextender and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.