We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has good performance."
"It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled."
"It is a scalable solution...The technical support team of the solution is very good."
"Our number of users working remotely vastly increased during the COVID 19 pandemic. Check Point Remote Access VPN allowed us to quickly make the transition from in-office to remote work."
"A single login based on a second authentication factor is giving us the possibility of integrating third-party services for authentication based on a security scheme."
"The team has full visibility of the users that connect allowing them to keep control of who is in the network and what data they are allowing to come in and out."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN provides strong security features, including encryption, authentication, endpoint security, access control, and centralized management."
"The ability to create your trigger data domains is the solution's most valuable feature."
"Scalability is great. We have been able to grow as a corporation due in part to this type of solution."
"It offers a simple configuration and setup."
"The visibility perspective is pretty cool. If I want to know how much data is being used for a specific project, I can look at how much data has been used, from which region, and which users have been connected. That visibility is very good so that I can see how many licenses we have and how many are used."
"There are plenty of features this solution provides and the most valuable would be the complete security protection we are receiving. We are provided with similar security that the Palo Alto AWS solution has. This includes features such as a firewall and machine learning AI."
"The most valuable feature is the zero-trust part of this solution."
"The tool's consolidation is pretty quick."
"I like it because it's very easy to use. You install the client and you have to know your gateway, but that's something we give to our users. Beyond that, it takes about three seconds to train them on how to use it. And it just works well. That's great for us because it means less administrative time."
"It's great that we can make sure a machine meets the minimum requirements before users are allowed to log in."
"It is geographically dispersed, and it sits on top of Google and AWS platforms. Therefore, you don't face the standard issues, such as latency or bandwidth issues, that you usually face in the case of on-prem data centers."
"The scalability of the solution is excellent."
"There must be a more easy-to-use GUI."
"I cannot see the full effect of the endpoint solution because it relies on having access to the DNF queries, which might not go through the Check Point firewall when you're using it for perimeter networks. Check Point will not identify the actual source of the net queries. This may be related to the architecture, however, and not poor product issues. I don't know if it can be improved on the Check Point side or not."
"A characteristic to improve is the communication service under the SMTP scheme."
"We are very happy with the Windows client. You log in with the VPN for the full client, you do the log in there. But for Linux machines, they don't have a full client to install. It is important because we have some users that use Linux and they don't have a specific application from Check Point to use. That is something that could be improved."
"The client-side UI is fundamental, and there is nothing to see."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN handles up to a hundred megabytes for clients, but I want it to be able to handle up to one gigabyte."
"Without a doubt and with the new trends in technology, Check Point should already have a blade with a 2MFA solution and not through some other vendor."
"You have no ability to reserve a total number of licenses. The VPN user licenses are assigned per gateway, and if you enable MEP function is not so easy to size the gateway licenses."
"In an environment with multiple cluster checkpoints, the global properties common to all clusters in some cases give problems."
"There can be some latency issues with the solution that should be improved."
"The product's current price is an area of shortcoming where improvements are required."
"Its integration with non-Palo Alto products can be improved. Currently, it is easy to integrate it with other Palo Alto products such as Cortex XDR. It integrates well with other Palo Alto products. A major part of our network is based on Palo Alto products, but for those companies that use multi-vendor products in their infrastructure, Palo Alto should optimize the integration of Prisma Access with the network devices from other vendors."
"Sometimes, you have these notifications sent out about changes in App-IDs, modifications in App-IDs, or even the introduction of entirely new App-IDs to replace. Sometimes, the recommendations are followed, but even then, when the package is installed on the firewall, it gets messed up. I remember a particular one was with Tableau, and suddenly, people weren't able to use Tableau, which is an analytics tool for business."
"We would like to see improvements in the licensing; currently, Palo Alto provides 500 to 1000 licenses for users, and we want to see 1500 to 2000 licenses for one version."
"The solution needs to be more compatible with other solutions. This is specifically a problem for us when it comes to healthcare applications. They have proprietary connection types and things of that nature that make compatibility a challenge sometimes."
"Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks should consolidate the portals into a single portal. It is slow and takes more than ten seconds to load a page."
"The user interface could be better. They need to work a little bit on the console. It is similar to their firewalls but not exactly. They need to clean it up a bit."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 6th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 62 reviews while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 5th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 59 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point Remote Access VPN writes "Is easy to use and has a nice interface, but the scalability needs to improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Check Point Harmony Mobile, Fortinet FortiClient and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, whereas Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Netskope , Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Prisma SD-WAN. See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks report.
See our list of best Enterprise Infrastructure VPN vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Infrastructure VPN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
