Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

We primarily provide the solution to our customers.

I don't create the use cases. I just deploy as required.

Largely, the solution is used for protection. It can be used for various purposes, including URL filtering, spam filtering, and VPN.

The URL filtering is the most valuable aspect of the product. I've used the VPN for that. It's of great value to the customer.

The solution is stable.

The product can scale well.

Technical support has been quite helpful in the past.

The company should work to improve its VPN capabilities.

For the most part, there aren't really any features or services that are missing.

The implementation may be a bit more complex for a person who doesn't have much experience with the process.

The company should update the URL filtering database. They need to enhance the URL filtering and make it easier to customize.

I've been dealing with the solution for the past two years or so.

The solution is mostly stable. We've just had a little configuration issue around the access and net policy. However, beyond that, it's been pretty reliable.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to scale, it can do so with ease.

Lately, I have not needed their services, however, I have contacted them in the past. I find them to be very helpful and responsive. They have a good support team. We are quite satisfied with them.

I also work with Palo Alto and Check Point.

You cannot say this is a simple product. Comparatively, to other products, such as Fortinet's Firewall, it's much more complex. It has an Azure Server client-server architecture. You need to install the entire management server separately and you need the client's GUI to manage the console. 

Deployment takes a while. It may be ten to 15 days for a medium-sized organization. I've mostly installed this in mid-sized companies.

There is some maintenance required. Often, we offer a monthly health checkup to our clients and we would provide maintenance services. 

I handle the installation for clients. I understand the process and can do everything for them.

This is an expensive product compared to Fortinet, however, it is cheaper than Palo Alto. That said, I can't speak to exact pricing. A different team manages the sales and licensing aspects. 

You can compare this solution to a few other vendors. For example, most of the features available in this product are also available in other products as well. If you're talking about Check Point NG and Palo Alto, Forcepoint is very similar. Palo Alto and Fortinet use a single appliance. However, Check Point and the Forcepoint have a  server-client with the architecture actually. We need to install the GUI from that. And a management server and engine we'll install separately too.

We have a partnership with Forcepoint. We are resellers of the solution.

We have clients that have the solution, and therefore we tend to deal with different versions of the solution. It might not always be the latest.

I would recommend the solution. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

The most valuable features are mainly the Management and the Active capabilities.

From a managerial point of view, as long as you have proper training, it's very easy to manage this firewall. Something that I've noticed that Forcepoint lacks, is the training that they offer to their customers. It's quite expensive, I believe it costs roughly $11,000. Because of this, we haven't been fully trained in this solution; to get the most out of this product, you need proper training. That is the only negative comment I have surrounding Forcepoint.

Aside from the expensive training, I honestly can't think of another issue. It's a fully-featured firewall that comes with everything required. The version that we are using has a single power supply, whereas we would prefer having dual power supplies on or firewalls.  

Our company has been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for roughly two years. 

Stability-wise, I have never had any major issues with it. No matter the situation, it has always served its purpose.

Scalability-wise, I cannot comment because we have not increased the number of firewalls or the number of nodes on our existing firewall. Although we have not implemented these changes, I know that it's very easy to increase the number of nodes and bandwidth, which means that it is very scalable, but from an on-premise point of view, we haven't done that. 

We've never had a negative experience with customer support. They have always been quickly available. I can't complain, I think they have a pretty good team. 

I don't have anything bad to say about the product. I absolutely love it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. 

We had planned on using this product as our multi-tenant firewall. After one year, we stopped using it because there was a problem with supporting some of the protocols.

The most valuable feature is the console management. It is very good and the security was great.

The interface is not user-friendly.

We were told that we would receive training but it came late and we had already started to deal with the product, which ultimately caused problems because we did it incorrectly. If the vendor focused more heavily on training as opposed to implementation then it would be a big improvement.

The UTM features are missing.

Application filtering is supported at a high level, but not at a low level. If I want to allow access to Facebook, yet not allow the user to access videos, then I am not able to do it with this product. Essentially, I'm allowed to block but I'm not allowed to limit. With other vendors, I can impose limits.

They need to add support for the Routing Information Protocol, RIP.

There is no support for the Built.io NIC driver.

I had been working with the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for about one year.

We had Forcepoint NGFW running on a virtual machine and it was very stable.

From the design that we took, it had the ability to scale up to 250 clients. That was good for what we needed but we failed with the first customer and could not complete the implementation for the second one.

In our environment, we had ten users.

We contacted technical support but it was not the typical support situation where we opened a ticket and they responded. We were in contact with them directly. Because it was irregular, I cannot judge how good or bad the support would normally be.

We are currently using three other vendors including Check Point, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. These have always been there but we were hoping to add Forcepoint as another option.

The initial setup is complicated and difficult to do.

By comparison, we have a very large number of products implemented in our environment and we can deploy most of them ourselves.

The deployment took almost seven months and ultimately, we failed. During our work on the deployment, we had two people handling the maintenance.

We received assistance directly from the vendor. There were several people who took part in the implementation including five from our side, one from the vendor, and two from the distributor. The help that we received from them was awesome.

The distributor knows the product more from a theoretical point of view. When it comes to the hands-on experience, they know the basics. When the person from the vendor came, they knew more about the product but had no experience with the multi-tenant aspect. So, for the part that we needed, they were failing. We spent a lot of time and received help from different people, and it was still a failure in the end. We disposed of the product.

We paid for a subscription license, vendor support, and the training.

We are a large service provider and we are always looking for new solutions. We had evaluated solutions by Sophos and SonicWall, although we decided that we were going to try Forcepoint.

We would not say No to another try with Forcepoint if, for example, they come back to us with a new version in another year. It would have to have documentation to show that what we want to do is now supported.

We tried a few implementations and we did not have very much success because the interface is not user-friendly and the product is complicated. If we had the training on time then it may have been easy but that wasn't the case.

The biggest lesson that I learned from using this solution is that you can't trust what people tell you. When they say that they will take care of things and support it, that is not included.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to make sure that the training is completed first, ahead of trying to implement it.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

I use the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall in my company for the protection of the Layer-2 networking area, which consists of Wi-Fi connections used in the enterprise.

The most valuable feature of the solution I like stems from the fact that the installation and configuration can be done locally. It is also easy to set up security capabilities. Forcepoint acts as a multi-service provider.

The endpoint protection capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have experience with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Around 100 people in my company use the tool.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

There is a need to make payments towards the licensing charges attached to the product. The product is not expensive.

The tool's SD-WAN capabilities are supported by the tool.

It is a nice product to use. The product can be used in the data center as a firewall.

The product does provide reporting and visibility features. There are many features provided by the product, especially the area of availability.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Forcepoint is a next-generation firewall, we are using it as a firewall for one of our customers, which includes one data center and 95 branches. Using the SD-WAN feature on Forcepoint NGFW, we provide a secure connection from all the branches to the data center.

We like the scalability of Forcepoint because, with the Forcepoint NGFW solution, we can scale anything. The solution has central management, so we can manage all the branches and devices centrally in one controller. This also allows the customer to manage the solution centrally.

Forcepoint comes with the SD-WAN feature, which connects all the branches and devices to the data center with a central connection. We bypass using a VPN or IPsec or anything like that because Forcepoint can do it automatically. Also, one of the controller benefits is that it can monitor the tech, meaning all the devices that are managed by Forcepoint.

I think some of the customers who already use Forcepoint will benefit from using SD-WAN because it has features like auto-scaling, but I think the auto-scaling needs improvement since only Forcepoint NGFW comes with the SD-WAN solution. Plus, auto-scaling is an important tool and it still may not be good enough for some customers, so I think there is room for more improvement in the auto-scaling feature in SD-WAN.

We have also gotten a slow response from technical support when we experienced hiccups, errors, and bugs. I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the support capabilities.

My company has been using the solution for about one year.

For a simple deployment with simple requirements, like firewall blocking and connecting to the LAN or data center, the stability of the device is quite good. However, when it comes to a complex deployment, the rules, firewall features, SD-WAN core features, and auto-scaling can cause the device to be not quite stable.

We like the scalability of Forcepoint because with the Forcepoint NGFW solution, we can scale anything. However, I think there is room for more improvement in the auto-scaling feature in SD-WAN.

I think their support capabilities have a lot of room for improvement because my company has had several issues. Of course, other products have issues too, but they have good support that helps us deliver a solution to the customer. With Forcepoint, however, the technical support is slow and I think the support team needs to be improved.

The installation is quite simple, but when it comes to configuration we need to know why the customer is implementing the solution. Firewalling or connecting other branches is a simple configuration but with something like auto-scaling or antivirus, Forcepoint needs to be more straightforward.

I think we deployed a data center in a half-day, so you can deploy the controller or the data center in about a day. The time it takes to activate and configure each branch varies, and may range from 15-40 minutes. Once we activate the solution and set it up for the customer, they connect it to the internet with our password and can begin working. Overall, I think one week is more than enough time for a thorough deployment.

There are some options for licensing. I think usually the licenses are valid for three years, but in my country we only have the option of a one-year license. The license is gauged on the requirements and the controller. There is a basic license and an advanced license, which offers more protection for antiviruses, like web category filtering.

I think Forcepoint is a good simple solution for firewalling. Because of the instability we faced within our project, which I think can be common with Forcepoint, I would only recommend this solution for a retail business with minimal, non-complex requirements. If you need more SD-WAN features, like auto-scaling, I don't think I would recommend Forcepoint. 

I would rate this solution as a five out of ten.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is mainly used for obligation redundancy, such as for latency distal and packet loss.

I have found that Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is easy to use, highly secure, and the main VPN tunnel is created automatically which is a benefit. 

I have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for approximately two years.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is stable.

The salability of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is great.

We have three clients that are using this solution.

The support from Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is not good, their response is not quick, We have had to wait a while.

The initial setup of the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has areas that are difficult.

There is a license required to use this solution and we can purchase it for one, two, three, or five years.

I would advise others to check compatibility before implementing this solution.

I rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a six out of ten.

I offer our clients the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

I work as a presales representative and a product manager for Forcepoint. I'm working on product demonstration demos and proofs-of-concept. I give customers sessions and show them firewall demos. Even if it's on-premises, cloud-based, or virtualized.

It's all about the firewalls, how to deploy them, what the main features of the firewall are, what it is best suited for, the advantages, the pros, and the cons.

I would like to see more sizing in the next release, and the roadmap should be clear. More models are needed to compete in terms of firewall sizing.

I have been dealing with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for three months.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a stable solution.

The Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a scalable product.

I work with various types of users and organizations. We have maybe, starting with 20,000 users to 100 users.

Technical support is not within my scope because I work as a pre-sales representative for one of Forcepoint's partners.

The installation is straightforward.

It is easy to install. It can take less than 20 minutes to install the firewall.

Depending on the number of firewalls, one engineer will be required to implement one solution.

It requires a yearly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

We publish books and use Forcepoint Firewall as the first line of defense on VPN access.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall could improve with applying policies. Also, improvement with publishing websites and VPN agent.

The solution needs to add an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile, not just policies and VPN.

Our company has been using Forcepoint Firewall for 5 years.

Forcepoint is a good, stable solution.

This solution is scalable. 

The technical support for Forcepoint is fine. They are polite and available twenty-four hours and usually resolve problems the same day.

The initial setup of this solution is easy. We only set up some of the policies.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is reasonable, it is priced the same as other firewalls. 

We evaluated Palo Alto, their main advantage over Forcepoint is that they have an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile.

I would rate Forcepoint a 7 out of 10. I would recommend that anyone considering this solution to upgrade their software to have more advantages.

We use it for SD-WAN, IPS, VPN, and subscription keys on the cloud or have an MDM on-premises. 

I like the IPS. IPS is the master feature. I depend on the firewall and sandbox.

Management could be better. They can improve the management. I think all our customers can't accept firewalls that have standalone management. So, they prefer Fortinet or Palo Alto. But overall, inspection and other features are working fine.

I have been working with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for four years.

With Forcepoint, we can cluster as a team firewall, and we can do great without downtime. Our sales team can sell Forcepoint because of this feature.

I would give technical support an eight out of ten. We had an issue with them because we had only support level one for each case we opened. We want them to improve their technical support because I still have three cases open from this year. From January until now, technical support didn't solve it. I feel like it's an easy case like the client's VPN and user ID, and it shouldn't take around five months. 

The initial configuration is straightforward, and we can use it with the cloud. But sometimes, there are network issues we can't see when we're using the ethernet cable. I think you need an engineer with some experience before implementing the first implementation by yourself.

The time it takes to deploy this solution depends on the features I have to implement or configure. Normally, it takes five or six working days, but it might take another week if I have issues with the VPN or user IDs.

We are an integrator. 

We have just a subscription for the cloud, and this license is great. The license is so good.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight.

It is very simple, easy to use, and flexible. It is a top solution with a complete feature set. Its most valuable feature involves its environment. 

A pain point worth mentioning is the need of the customer or client to properly know the environment as it relates to the presentation of Forcepoint and to have a better knowledge of the product's implementation. 

We have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for six years. 

It's very stable product. 

We feel Forcepoint's scalability to be pretty easy and good. It works very well. 

We feel the product's technical support could be better, as this relates to the solution itself, to the installation of the product, and to having a proper understanding of the case. 

The initial setup of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is not terribly complex. We are talking about three months at the intermediate level. 

While the deployment of a single firewall depends on the environment, this took us between two to five days. 

We employ more than 16 people on our staff for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has a good price. 

In addition to Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall, we evaluated the concurrency of Palo Alto's features. We feel that Forcepoint affords better centralized management than its competitors.

Our company makes use of every current version of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. 

Our clients who use Forcepoint run the gamut from small, medium to large businesses. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.