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

Check Point Remote Access VPN vs Sangfor EasyConnect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 25, 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 Remote Access VPN
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Remote Access (5th)
Sangfor EasyConnect
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
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 Remote Access VPN is 3.3%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sangfor EasyConnect is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point Remote Access VPN3.3%
Sangfor EasyConnect1.4%
Other95.3%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

Dhiren - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Lead - Network and Security at Digitaltrack
Secure data transfers and reliable remote connectivity have strengthened infrastructure
Check Point Remote Access VPN helps me secure and protect my data. If a remote user's device has a vulnerability, the VPN helps. It is very reliable and cost-effective. It keeps my data protected so no one can breach it. There is no interception between the two channels, from the user to the data center, when the VPN tunnel is established with Check Point. Check Point also has a high rate of threat prevention, so I really trust it in this case. I have noticed that my data is now more secure and reliable when accessed from a remote location. This is an issue that it has resolved for my data center.
SH
Project Manager at Novu
Easy to use and has a straightforward user interface
The solution is very straightforward and easy to connect. Sangfor EasyConnect is quite a secured product. The solution is easy to use and has a straightforward user interface The design of the user interface could be improved. The solution should have an AI feature that provides proactive alerts…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Check Point Remote Access VPN has given positive outcomes by providing the flexibility to work from anywhere; it has increased the productivity of the team."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point Remote Access VPN is its ability to deploy. It follows the same process as their stateful inspection firewall or IPS. If you know how to enable one feature, you can enable and configure others. The learning curve isn't steep."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN has made my job easier because I don't need to worry about reaching the organization office and connecting to servers, as I am now free to work from anywhere and able to access the server securely and seamlessly."
"Check Point has been perfect for protecting us from any type of attack or data theft during remote management."
"Setting policies allow, block, and limit users' access."
"It is a scalable solution...The technical support team of the solution is very good."
"The security of the solution is a good feature, the stability is a valuable feature, and the customization is also a nice feature."
"Organizations that already use the Check Point NGFW Solution do not require any additional hardware, which makes the implementation straightforward and reduces the time to go live."
"The solution is easy to use and has a straightforward user interface."
 

Cons

"The product’s architecture is a bit distributed."
"The cost of maintenance is high compared to most products in the market."
"When you need to create something, you have to follow many steps and I think that should be simplified."
"The support hours don't align with work hours, and AI could be introduced."
"A characteristic to improve is the communication service under the SMTP scheme."
"One area that could be improved is the complexity of setting up Check Point Remote Access VPN, particularly with features like multi-factor authentication, single sign-on, and identity awareness. Deploying these solutions requires higher technical expertise than other solutions."
"We encounter challenges for the product’s installation and troubleshooting processes compared to other VPN products."
"The product needs to improve its support."
"The design of the user interface could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a license required for this solution."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN is not expensive and the cost is annual."
"My company makes yearly payments only towards the licensing costs attached to Check Point Remote Access VPN, as there are no extra costs attached to the product."
"The solution is pretty expensive. The rating is an eight."
"The product is expensive. I rate its pricing a ten out of ten. For the cost of one product, we could purchase two or three Fortinet solutions with the same amount of money."
"Organizations that already have the Check Point NGFW need to purchase an additional license to have access to the VPN functionality."
"Regarding pricing, as a global customer, we get a big discount. For us, it's a good return on investment. We need to pay for additional features we want to enable. It seems cheaper than other vendors, but I can't say what it would cost an average customer."
"The price of this product is good."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
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
Outsourcing Company
19%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business54
Midsize Enterprise31
Large Enterprise34
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Check Point Endpoint Remote Access VPN?
The main improvement I see for Check Point Remote Access VPN would be a cleaner, more modern interface. It works well, but a streamlined UI would make the day-to-day even smoother.
What is your primary use case for Check Point Endpoint Remote Access VPN?
Check Point Remote Access VPN is used to provide employees access to internal corporate resources when they are working from home or outside the office. The finance team and HR team securely connec...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sangfor EasyConnect?
On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with Sangfor EasyConnect?
The design of the user interface could be improved. The solution should have an AI feature that provides proactive alerts when your infrastructure lacks best practices.
What advice do you have for others considering Sangfor EasyConnect?
We're quite equipped with resources for maintaining the solution. One person would be sufficient to maintain Sangfor EasyConnect. The solution’s integration with other Sangfor products is quite eas...
 

Also Known As

Check Point Remote Access VPN, Check Point Endpoint Remote Access VPN
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Osmose, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), The Royal Malaysian Customs Department, ShunSin Technology Holdings Limited, Carsem, Sunway University
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet, OpenVPN, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.