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

Check Point SandBlast Network vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 SandBlast Network
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MetaDefender
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
34th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (29th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (32nd), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Check Point SandBlast Network is 3.4%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point SandBlast Network3.4%
MetaDefender1.2%
Other95.4%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

MW
Technical Specialist at Softcell Technologies Limited
Comprehensive security solution mitigates advanced threats
Improvements for Check Point SandBlast Network can be seen in dashboard usability; the threat emulation logs and analysis reports could be made more intuitive and visually appealing. Enhancing the system for granular tuning to reduce false positives and allowing benign files to bypass checks more simply for non-expert users would be beneficial. Additionally, faster emulation times could be achieved by increasing file scanning speed through hardware productivity enhancements. A specific instance where file scanning speed posed an issue was when the time taken depended on the file size. Scanning can take less than a minute or up to 2 minutes for larger files. Enhancing the file scanning time would be a significant improvement to the system.
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

"When our workers are downloading software, SandBlast Cloud is useful to emulate the downloads that the workers are doing. Then, there are no threats coming into the company."
"The best feature Check Point SandBlast Network offers is real-time threat extraction capabilities, which sanitizes the files, mails, and other content before reaching the end-users."
"One of its characteristics that we liked the most was its analysis and emulation of activities in the emails since it manages to review them and inspect them if they have an infected attachment."
"The use of threat cloud protection with its artificial intelligence can automate possible threats."
"Threat extraction can help us to remove malicious content from documents by converting them to PDF."
"Check Point SandBlast Network has positively impacted my organization, as I have seen huge changes with a notable drop in malware incidents, especially with suspicious attachments; it gives the security team confidence that known or zero-day files are checked automatically."
"SandBlast has opened us up to a lot more opportunities where we can offer this service to clients, that way they don't have to go to a third-party to get this specific solution. It comes in the Check Point Infinity Package so it has helped us a lot."
"In terms of the scalability, it's expandable across the cloud."
"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."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
 

Cons

"The customer support for Check Point SandBlast Network could be improved as they are sometimes late with their responses."
"We have found a need for the application to be a bit more elastic, bringing it to SAS services and not IAS."
"I chose eight out of ten because I feel it is a good application; however, it is not a ten due to cons such as being not ideal for small IT firms with very small budgets, and it needs to be more transparent and user-friendly when getting into and using it."
"There is a limit on the number of files that can be scanned in real-time, which could lead to us being found with our guard down on a high-traffic day."
"There should be some improvement in the solution's stability and scalability."
"We have noticed a slight performance hit when the Threat Emulation and Extraction features were enabled, but the protection trade-off is worth it for us."
"The Threat Emulation software blade significantly affects the performance of the NGFWs, we have a significant increase in the CPU and memory consumption."
"The management of alerts could improve them a bit - especially in event management."
"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

"The cost is not significantly high and it can be negotiated during any purchase of NGFW."
"The pricing is quite effective, not excessively high. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the highest price, I rate the pricing a nine."
"We would like to try the Threat Extraction blade, but you need to buy a license. Check Point is expensive. I would like to buy things, but I would need the funding."
"Choosing the correct set of licenses is essential because, without the additional software blade licenses, the Check Point gateways are just a stateful firewall."
"The product's cost is high."
"We have seen ROI."
"I think the overall cost for introducing Check Point with SandBlast was reasonable and competitive in the market."
"The cost of Check Point SandBlast Network is annually, and there is only a standard license."
"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 Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Marketing Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
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 Business31
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Check Point SandBlast Network?
My experience with pricing and setup cost is that pricing was a bit high, but the setup cost was initially justified.
What needs improvement with Check Point SandBlast Network?
I feel that Check Point SandBlast Network could be improved with slight delays in cleaning the file delivery. Additionally, I think it requires proper tuning to avoid unnecessary notifications.
What is your primary use case for Check Point SandBlast Network?
My main use case for Check Point SandBlast Network is advanced threat protection, especially for scanning emails, attachments, web downloads, and incoming files through a sandbox environment. A qui...
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

No data available
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edenred, State Transport Leasing Company (STLC), Edel AG, Laurenty, Conseil Départemental du Val de Marne, Koch Media
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point SandBlast Network vs. MetaDefender and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.