Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

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. 

We are using this solution as our corporate firewall.

This solution is quite good.

It's a good firewall but we are looking for features that are available in Palo Alto.

My team is looking for more throughput and better integration with our security framework. Better integration with other platforms would be an improvement.

 We have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for one year.

We are using the latest version.

Forcepoint is stable and we plan to continue using it in the future.

This is a scalable product. We have approximately 300 users.

We can get local support, which has been okay so far.

The people we deal with is a local partner in Cambodia and we can get good support from them.

The installation was not an issue for us.

Our in-house team did it with the help of our local partner.

We have three or four IT people who take care of deployment and maintenance.

We are still evaluating other products such as Palo Alto.

One of our goals is to minimize the number of different vendors that we have. Ideally, we would like to have a firewall and security solution with good performance from a single vendor, with a single management console.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It is stable and scalable. In addition, their support is great. When you ask them for something, they provide support, and if required, they also involve the R&D team to help you to resolve the issues in your configuration.

They need to increase the local support here. There are also some bugs or fixes on which they need to work. They very well know about these bugs.

In terms of licensing, I would like them to either increase the number of features in a single license or make licensing more flexible.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have many customers, and some of them have from 500 to 1,000 users.

Their support is great.

Its initial setup is easy, but it also depends on the size of the implementation. 

The implementation of email security and web security is also easy, but the implementation of DLP is very complicated and can take six to eight months. You can install the software in an hour, but there are a lot of configuration changes, and some critical information must be gathered from the customer for implementation and configuration, which takes time.

The number of people required to deploy and implement this solution varies. We have four or five technical staff members who can do the implementation. We have the same number of people for its support after the implementation. From the customer side, a local team is required to work with and manage this solution.

Everything in Forcepoint comes with an individual license, which is kind of a problem. In our last meeting, they said that it may change at the beginning of 2021, and they will try to merge some licenses together. Customers will get more features than what they got previously. We will wait and see.

Forcepoint is a very big company with a very good product line. It fulfills most of the needs of the customers, especially enterprise customers in the financial sector. I use Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall as well as the DLP, web, and email solutions from Forcepoint. No other solution can compete with Forcepoint's DLP solution. We are going to keep using Forcepoint products. Some of our customers are only interested in Forcepoint. 

I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a nine out of ten.

We give consultancy and propose technology based on the customer's design. We also do long-term deployments. Normally, our solutions are deployed on-premises. We have some key projects where almost everything is deployed on-premises. We also manage the solutions and infrastructures with firewalls, network devices, etc. We have a great experience with different technologies, and Forcepoint is one of them.

The feature that we like the most about Forcepoint is that we know the technology and have confidence in it. 

We can have several functionalities to simplify operations and management. We can combine functionalities like log ownership to review the number of devices in the infrastructure. 

Its interface is complex when compared with a firewall like FortiGate. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall needs a management console, whereas FortiGate doesn't need any console. When you have a few devices, a console is not really necessary. It's good to have a private console only when you have a lot of devices.

We began to work with Forcepoint when they got Stonesoft several years ago.

Our projects are not very demanding in terms of performance. Therefore, we don't have any special requirements for scalability. We have some customers for whom we manage this kind of technology, and the scalability or performance is achieved by deploying a greater data appliance.

I might have contacted them for some questions related to managing instances. We sometimes had problems with registering or activating licenses on the manufacturer portal. I haven't opened any ticket personally. My colleagues have contacted them for technical support, that is, for problems that go beyond the basics of the Forcepoint configuration, such as for replacing some faulty components. Their experience was good in general.

I'm not in the technical part right now, but based on what I have learned from my technical colleagues, the initial setup is not very difficult. When you have experience in setting up or working with these technologies, it's not difficult to set up a firewall. 

We have certified people to manage this technology. We manage the infrastructure for our clients.

We are managing a customer's infrastructure where we have two pairs of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall working without any major problem. 

I would recommend Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on your needs. It's very useful for us to mix several technologies on the same platform to increase its security level. We have experience with Check Point, FortiGate, Palo Alto, and StrongGate (which became McAfee and then Forcepoint). Many times, we combine two or three technologies into the same platform without any problem. However, we did have a horrible experience with Forcepoint in the past. Some of the project deployments were not very great, specifically for applications offering very specific services to users. 

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

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.

Forcepoint could make the interface more reasonable and easier to navigate. If you are not good at Forcepoint, you cannot easily manage it. Fortinet is easy to navigate and reach.

Forcepoint should focus on upgrades. Sometimes, service is impacted or disrupted after an upgrade. You have to read the release notes carefully before doing anything.

I have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for three years.

Four years ago, I called support. Their response was very bad, but the antivirus was good.

Fortinet is better because it is very easy to manage. For Forcepoint, you need someone to dive into GUI or make some changes in the configuration, navigate, etc.

The initial setup is complex with the NG firewall compared to Fortinet. You can manage it easily by doing some virtual context and trying to divide the solution. You need experience for that. You have to do some lab to do something to prepare.

The product is not expensive.

I recommend Fortinet. Fortinet is booming now, but it is expensive. Both have pros and cons. You can compare both with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is more stable and more scalable. Forcepoint has many more features than Fortinet.

Overall, I rate the solution a six 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.