I would assess Check Point Quantum Force's real-time threat intelligence in guarding against ransomware as not effective. I have not used its real-time threat intelligence. I am not very familiar with the granular visibility in policy management of Check Point Quantum Force. The price remains the same, and I see room for improvement for Check Point Quantum Force. I see good competition which is less expensive. The overall response time and overall competence are areas I would improve. I do not want to see any additional features in Check Point Quantum Force in the future.
IT Manager Cloud Network And Security at Piramal Group
Real User
Top 20
Dec 29, 2025
I have observed weaknesses in Check Point Quantum Force, particularly when configuring tunnels from any point product to a peer, which has very complex configuration requirements. I must create a star topology or community in which I need to define some configuration, and it is not straightforward communication for IPSec. In comparison, another brand such as Palo Alto firewall offers very straightforward configuration. However, in Check Point, the complexity is present. I believe it would be beneficial if they could improve the configuration part. An additional feature I would appreciate in Check Point Quantum Force in the future is an easier way to manage and configure, along with real-time monitoring. From a user perspective, it would be beneficial to have all gateway tunnel monitoring in one window. Currently, there are different tabs for monitoring, and if I want to check the monitoring status, it would be better if I could access it all in a single window, as other firewalls offer. With Check Point Quantum Force, I currently check the tunnel status, which involves monitoring in another smart console that will open and show the status. I would prefer a smart console that consolidates all the statuses, such as tunnel status, tunnel monitoring status, and log status, in a single window rather than navigating to different windows.
Optical Fiber Splicer at a tech company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 10
Dec 3, 2025
Sophos has a low price, so customers with lower budgets will purchase Sophos. Customers with good budgets who want security features will implement Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point because these are enterprise-level solutions and provide better security. Sophos is only compared for its price point. Price is a significant factor. When we refer customers to Check Point Quantum Force, the price is high compared to other firewalls, and customers are not agreeable because their budgets do not accommodate Check Point Quantum Force. Fortinet firewall and Sophos firewall are more easily available and have more accessible pricing compared to Check Point Quantum Force and Palo Alto. Check Point Quantum Force does not have strong local support. We are based in India, and Check Point Quantum Force does not have extensive local support. It takes time for responses, and sometimes they provide local SI contact numbers, but we sometimes face delayed problem resolution rather than quick action.
I have noticed some limitations with Check Point Quantum Force. There is a limitation in integrating with existing infrastructure, such as orchestration and logging, specifically with VPNs. VPNs are hard and sophisticated to deploy on this firewall. However, it is improving currently. Some performance aspects need higher resources. If you do not give it higher resources, it will slow down your network. It is a trade-off - if you have higher resources, you will have good performance. The complexity of configuring a VPN needs to be improved because we need to go back and forth to configure VPNs. It has to be simpler to understand.
Firewalls serve as essential network security devices designed to monitor incoming and outgoing traffic, establishing a barrier between trusted and untrusted networks to protect against cyber threats. Firewalls, critically important in IT infrastructure, offer a range of security features that include packet filtering, stateful inspection, and proxy service. They are used extensively to define policies that allow or block traffic, playing a crucial role in preventing unauthorized access....
I would assess Check Point Quantum Force's real-time threat intelligence in guarding against ransomware as not effective. I have not used its real-time threat intelligence. I am not very familiar with the granular visibility in policy management of Check Point Quantum Force. The price remains the same, and I see room for improvement for Check Point Quantum Force. I see good competition which is less expensive. The overall response time and overall competence are areas I would improve. I do not want to see any additional features in Check Point Quantum Force in the future.
I have observed weaknesses in Check Point Quantum Force, particularly when configuring tunnels from any point product to a peer, which has very complex configuration requirements. I must create a star topology or community in which I need to define some configuration, and it is not straightforward communication for IPSec. In comparison, another brand such as Palo Alto firewall offers very straightforward configuration. However, in Check Point, the complexity is present. I believe it would be beneficial if they could improve the configuration part. An additional feature I would appreciate in Check Point Quantum Force in the future is an easier way to manage and configure, along with real-time monitoring. From a user perspective, it would be beneficial to have all gateway tunnel monitoring in one window. Currently, there are different tabs for monitoring, and if I want to check the monitoring status, it would be better if I could access it all in a single window, as other firewalls offer. With Check Point Quantum Force, I currently check the tunnel status, which involves monitoring in another smart console that will open and show the status. I would prefer a smart console that consolidates all the statuses, such as tunnel status, tunnel monitoring status, and log status, in a single window rather than navigating to different windows.
Sophos has a low price, so customers with lower budgets will purchase Sophos. Customers with good budgets who want security features will implement Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point because these are enterprise-level solutions and provide better security. Sophos is only compared for its price point. Price is a significant factor. When we refer customers to Check Point Quantum Force, the price is high compared to other firewalls, and customers are not agreeable because their budgets do not accommodate Check Point Quantum Force. Fortinet firewall and Sophos firewall are more easily available and have more accessible pricing compared to Check Point Quantum Force and Palo Alto. Check Point Quantum Force does not have strong local support. We are based in India, and Check Point Quantum Force does not have extensive local support. It takes time for responses, and sometimes they provide local SI contact numbers, but we sometimes face delayed problem resolution rather than quick action.
I have noticed some limitations with Check Point Quantum Force. There is a limitation in integrating with existing infrastructure, such as orchestration and logging, specifically with VPNs. VPNs are hard and sophisticated to deploy on this firewall. However, it is improving currently. Some performance aspects need higher resources. If you do not give it higher resources, it will slow down your network. It is a trade-off - if you have higher resources, you will have good performance. The complexity of configuring a VPN needs to be improved because we need to go back and forth to configure VPNs. It has to be simpler to understand.