Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

I have implemented the solution for customers at about three or four different companies now. I primarily use it for general Cloud Security to protect Azure. In most cases, it has always been about securing Azure.

For me, Checkpoint in general is characterized by the ease of day-to-day use, management, log review, and all that. This is a big plus because I can execute these tasks effectively through the Cloud, which is the biggest point for me. It is a significant improvement over Azure's security features, providing enhanced security when Checkpoint is implemented. This is especially beneficial nowadays, as businesses are working with fewer people who need to accomplish more tasks.

In my experience, the failover times are a bit poor during an HA failover in the Cloud. However, this also depends on API calls in Azure, so there is not much I can do there. If there is something I could improve, it would be this aspect.

I would say that I have used Network Security for about two years.

The first few setups are always a bit uncertain, like wondering what is going to happen. The documentation is great, but the problem with Cloud technologies is that it changes all the time, leading to outdated documentation. It can be a bit challenging in the beginning, but once I get used to it, the process is acceptable.

The stability is good, apart from the failover I mentioned before, which takes a bit of time. Again, it is not really Checkpoint's fault; it is just due to Cloud architecture. Overall, stability is good, and upgrades are proceeding well.

Scalability offers two solutions: the gateway and the load balancer setup. The load balancer setup is fantastic. If I need anything, it spins up or spins down and works smoothly. When I adopted it around three years ago, I deployed clusters in the Cloud with two firewalls in HA, but the failover was not ideal. Depending on the scenario, I need to choose the right solution.

Technical support has greatly improved over the last couple of years. It used to be less effective, but now it is in a good state. Also, interactions with salespeople from Checkpoint are going well. I have talked with Palo Alto support as well, and Checkpoint is way better.

I just started at the company I am working for now, but my previous customer used Palo Alto. They have the same products, of course, but the usability is not the same. It is stable and good, but the usability is not equivalent.

I use multiple approaches. First, I create an architectural design and check with their Cloud team to see their implementation of their environment. Depending on that, I proceed accordingly. It is really customer-based.

For us, it is not really applicable since we sell it and that is the end of it. However, the feedback from customers has been positive. It performs well, effectively doing its job without slowing down and stopping threats. I think the customer is also receiving a significant return on investment from the solution.

The most significant advantage for a day-to-day user like me is the logs. In Palo Alto, I need to manage brackets and everything, and issues arise if something is spaced incorrectly. In Checkpoint, I can input whatever I need and get the required results. This is a major win in troubleshooting. Logging is okay on both platforms, but if I know exactly what to type in Palo Alto, it is manageable. However, they are quite similar without too big a difference. For email security, Checkpoint offers a big advantage, but that is unrelated to Network Security.

I would give it a solid eight. This is quite a good score in my opinion. Absolutely. I rate the overall solution an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I am using a Public Cloud deployment model.

I use Microsoft Azure as the cloud provider.

We have used Check Point for on-premise network security, normal firewalling, also application control, antivirus, et cetera. We have around 120 clusters with Check Point managed by MDS, and we also have a Maestro environment. 

We have some services in Azure cloud, and I have Check Point's product there to protect them. It's in development at the moment. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Seucrity is easy to build in the cloud and easy to scale. You can create scale sets, and then it handles it by itself, how much traffic comes in, et cetera.

It has helped us have unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. There are only a few services that you can't manage in our on-prem management. For example, if you are using SD-WAN or something, you must use the Infiniti portal with its services.

More support from our partners would be beneficial. A lot could be explained more. It's often a use case that the management is behind NAT, and I need to know what to do to connect my cloud gateways. Documentation is very good from Check Point, however, in this case, it could be better. Maybe more support in building up these environments would be helpful. We are a big company, so we have different teams, and guidance from Check Point would be useful. I need certain things, teams, and permissions, which might make it easier.

I have used it for network security for around 13 years.

I have no problems with stability. There is no downtime. Sometimes, it's a bit difficult to connect to our management.

I can create scale sets, and then it handles how much traffic comes in, adjusts usage, and then scales up or down.

I haven't used other solutions. I've only used other platforms, such as AWS and Azure. It has marketplace templates you can use.

The deployment is very good. It is plug and play. I can choose what I want and what kind of product, and then I simply click "continue" to start. YOu can make your own properties. 

I don't have much information about the pricing. 

We're a Check Point customer. 

It's a very interesting product. However, it's a whole infrastructure, so I have to learn a lot of things besides Check Point to set up the environment. On-premise, we also have switch infrastructure, and it's now something we are familiar with over the years. In the cloud, it's more about clicking here and there to pair it together, which is a different experience. Sometimes I don't know if something is missing because of cloud permissions or if it's due to a lack of knowledge. Maybe more support in building up this environment. 

I give it a ten out of ten.

Public Cloud

I have been at my company for about five years now. We use it as a firewall. Our private firewall is used for everything related to security. 

There is not one feature in particular that stands out, it's just a very good product that we are very fond of. 

It is really easy to work with and has an easy learning curve. It integrates with Azure without any problems. 

It provides a huge benefit in many ways, offering a boost in confidence for secure cloud deployment and migration.

We don't have any complaints with the solution terms of finding threats.

It does help us reduce risk, although I don't have exact numbers. 

We have very good confidence in secure cloud management and migration. We're very used to the product.

We have a direct line with the engineers of Check Point, which is very important. 

I do not have any specific improvements in mind for the tool. It is a solution that is what we need at the moment. There could always be something to enhance deployment, however, for now, it is quite adequate.

The pricing could always be reduced.

I have been using the solution for about five years.

I want to stick with the products we have used. This is the most stable one we have had.

It is very user-friendly to scale. We have transitioned from 1,000 to 500 users without any issue.

The few times I needed customer service, I was very happy with it.

Neutral

We have used solutions from other companies, however, we stayed connected with this one due to its user-friendliness and seamless integration with Azure.

The setup was very fluid. It was very integrated into Azure. We deployed without an issue. 

We did not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for setting it up. We had some minor issues and tweaks, however it was straightforward.

I hope the return on investment is positive. I am not in charge of that. As far as I know, the C-level team is very happy with it.

I am not in charge of setup costs, however, from what I hear, it could always be cheaper.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

It is never perfect, so it cannot be a ten, however, it is very close to amazing.

Private Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to ensure we have the same management system for managing firewall policies both on-premises and in the cloud.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security enabled us to move to cloud workloads safely while having the same level of security as we have on-prem. 

The unified management, unified log management, and unified policies are all invaluable. We like that everything is unified. 

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premise. Security operations are simplified by unified management, easing troubleshooting, and maintenance. Using the same objects in both the on-prem and cloud policies reduces the need to switch between different interfaces and log stores, enhancing our security operations significantly.

It's helped us reduce organizational risk. I cannot say by how much. Just having the same policies everywhere without having to move around different management interfaces and log stores just helps with security operations. We can see everything in one pane of glass. 

We have confidence in our secure deployments and migrations. In fact, it has enabled us to move to the cloud securely. The confidence is there based on our confidence in Check Point products on-prem. 

Improvement is needed in the deployment models. Currently, I have deployed VMs and installed CloudGuard as if they were gateways. Having some as-a-service models would be great. 

Scalability could be improved as well; needing to purchase a new license each time I want to add a new interface is not ideal.

I have used the solution for three years now.

The solution works adequately, meeting my expectations for a firewall.

Scalability could be improved. When we need to buy a new license, to add a new interface is not ideal.

Support is okay. Sometimes, it is necessary to reiterate the importance of a case; however, generally, the cases are handled to our satisfaction.

Positive

We did not use a different solution previously. 

We have an on-prem and cloud environment. The setup was relatively easy, even the first time. I just select it from the marketplace, and it appears. After that, it's the same as installing on-premise gateways, including a first-time installation wizard.

I received assistance from an external third-party company. The experience was great and has continued to be good over the seven years I've employed them.

The cost is adequate. I am not responsible for pricing and licensing aspects, I would say pricing is adequate. It is not cheap, however, I am not seeking cheap solutions; I want the best solutions.

We have not evaluated other solutions. 

I would give it a solid eight out of ten. I am not yet fully utilizing all its functionalities and I cannot assess all features. There is always room for improvement. 

Hybrid Cloud

My primary use case is to protect the cloud applications that we store specifically in Azure. 

It has helped our organization with security. We have other Check Point firewalls, so we can accumulate everything in one place and manage everything in one place.

It provides unified security management. It makes things easier and faster. We can manage it all in one place in one policy package. We do not have to worry about anything else.

It has helped us reduce our organizational risk.

The most valuable features for me are related to management. I can use the data center objects directly in the policy without worrying about specific static IP addresses. The data center objects update automatically if the IP addresses change. 

There is room for improvement in how it handles deployment itself, but I am not sure. It could be due to Azure's limitations, not Check Point's. Deploying a new firewall is quite bulky and not straightforward, especially in managing the resource group and networks. These issues seem to come more from the Azure part. It is hard to tell.

I have used the solution for about a year now.

The stability is good. I find it really good.

We do not use it regularly, but I tested it and it is quite good.

My experience with customer service was good. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it a nine out of ten, leaving a gap for improvement.

Positive

I previously used Azure Native Firewall. Other solutions were just tested. We did not use them. We left Azure Native Firewall due to the firewall's slow performance, especially for operations like applying rules. The general functionality of that firewall was incomparable to CloudGuard. 

We have a hybrid environment. We have Azure Cloud.

The initial setup was fine for me. All the complications likely come from Azure. Generally, from Check Point's perspective, it is pretty simple to set up the firewall and attach it to the management. It is easy.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we follow a default or standard deployment plan for all firewalls. It is pretty much the same for on-prem and cloud firewalls, with some differences depending on the cloud, but generally, it is the same list of things to do.

We are integrating ourselves. We did it all in-house.

From the engineering side, it reduces the amount of time I spend on doing changes on the firewalls, like adding rules, which eventually saves money for the company.

Generally, it has been fine for me. I can find my way around the price list, and it is pretty simple.

We did a comparison before we went with CloudGuard, though not for this customer. We generally researched different solutions like Palo Alto, FortiGate, Cisco, and Azure Firewall. We mostly work with Azure, so we did not look into AWS or other solutions.

We went for Check Point because of its ease of management, security features, and cost. Check Point management is way easier. It saves so much time. That is why I prefer to stick to Check Point solutions. Check Point was also one of the cheapest ones. 

The management part simplifies many things. Regarding security features, there are good competitors, and I can replace Check Point with them easily, but it is the management aspect that makes it different for me.

In terms of security threats, I have not done a lot of heavy testing on threats, but my experience is pretty much on par with Palo Alto solutions. FortiGate is a bit less, and I did not even try Cisco security. In my experience, the easy management of Check Point makes all the difference.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

CloudGuard is protecting my cloud workloads. The secure communication between my on-premises network and the cloud network is the main use case. I am establishing one continuous rule set across all of my infrastructure and then maintaining all the guards and measures throughout my infrastructure.

We managed to reduce the effort and workload as well as the attack surface across our infrastructure. We now have a more continuous policy. 

The centralized management is one of the key use cases. 

I managed to reduce the effort, workload, and attack surface across my overall financial infrastructure. These are the main things. Centralized management is the feature I like best, resulting in reduced workload and more continuous policy.

We have unified security management across hybrid environments. 

It's good for identifying security threats. We compare it to what cloud solutions providers offer. We look more into the actual traffic and the enforcement of the policy. What Check Point provides goes beyond and is not comparable to what is offered by the native network solutions. 

We have confidence in secure cloud migrations. It's imperative to use a solution like this. We wouldn't want to run our cloud without this level of security and protection.

Today, we are trying to look more into encrypted traffic. API security is one of the most highlighted aspects we are currently evaluating. Network Detection Response (NDR) and AI protection are the main areas I am focusing on now. In addition, I am looking into Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) solutions in general.

I have been using a Check Point solution for three and a half years now. I have used network security for a much longer period before that. 

The stability is very good. I am very happy with stability.

CloudGuard scalability is what it is. It integrates perfectly into the cloud world, which is what I expect. With the centralized management in place, scalability is perfect. I can deploy it everywhere I need it. Scalability is one of the key factors for selecting this solution.

Check Point support is similar to other support on the market.

Neutral

I have looked at Cisco and Palo Alto. I evaluated these solutions and then came to terms with Check Point. We like that it integrates with other security solutions from Check Point we're running.

We have looked at competitive vendors a lot and we decided to go with Check Point. We've looked at Cisco and Palo Alto, however, we preferred Check Point's centralized management. 

Overall, I would rate the product eight out of ten.

We are dealing with customer data, so we use a firewall to cover all API calls. If you access our sites, it will be via Check Point Firewall. Or if you send a file, it will go via Check Point Firewall.

Check Point CloudGuard provides comprehensive security coverage. The solution covers all entry points and helps manage customer data securely by covering all API calls and processing data efficiently. 

It offers alerts for suspicious activities and an automated system that updates itself to detect irregular patterns, providing notifications for possibly compromised situations.

The pricing is too high. We pay more than twenty-five thousand USD per year, which could be reduced. 

Moreover, Check Point does not initially support serverless architecture, requiring additional efforts from our team to manage it.

Our company has been using Check Point tools for five years.

There are no issues with the stability of Check Point CloudGuard.

The solution is scalable to support our growth for at least two to three more years.

Customer support is efficient with no major issues. The support team is responsive and cooperative. However, the knowledge and expertise of the professional services staff were inconsistent.

Positive

We experienced a lower pricing offer from Trend Micro, however, due to security preferences and support, we chose Check Point.

The initial setup faced challenges due to knowledge gaps on the professional services team. However, the technical side was supportive and helped address these issues.

The professional services used for implementation had inconsistent expertise, requiring involvement from our technical team to resolve gaps.

Pricing is high, over $25,000 USD annually. The package offered includes features we may not need, and more flexible licensing could be cheaper.

We considered alternatives like Trend Micro, which offered more competitive pricing.

I would recommend Check Point CloudGuard. The solution is rated eight out of ten overall.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

Our primary use case for CloudGuard Network Security is to secure the cloud environment where we host our backend systems. The platform helps to guard the network security of our infrastructure by securing the traffic and preventing cyber threats. 

It also ensures compliance with industry regulations. Moreover, it integrates easily with AWS and Google Cloud, allowing us to apply a unified security policy throughout our cloud infrastructure.

Check Point CloudGuard has been very helpful in maintaining a high level of security across our cloud environments as our apps integrate with multiple cloud services. 

It ensures secure communication between services and user devices, protecting sensitive data like user information and financial transactions. This has resulted in increased client satisfaction and retention, particularly in sectors requiring stringent data protection like finance and healthcare.

One of the most valuable features is the automated threat prevention, which helps us detect and block potential cyberattacks in real-time, minimizing data breaches. 

The ability to integrate with multiple cloud platforms provides a centralized view of our applications, enhancing security management. The solution also offers real-time visibility and protection against network threats.

The user interface could be more intuitive, and the initial setup and configuration can be complex, requiring a technical team. 

Additional improved documentation and support would make it easier for beginners and small-scale startups. Furthermore, the pricing model is quite expensive, which could be a barrier for smaller companies.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The platform is quite stable. We have not faced any difficulties with its stability.

The solution is very scalable. I would rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

My experience with customer support has been positive. They are responsive and knowledgeable, available twenty-four by seven. However, they could improve by providing documentation for offline issues to better assist users who may not reach out to them directly.

Neutral

Before using Check Point CloudGuard, we managed security through a team of experts. Due to budget cuts during a recession, we switched to using this solution to maintain our security standards.

The initial setup was quite complex, requiring a technical team to understand the processes and implement the solution. More intuitive configuration tools and better documentation would be helpful.

We deployed the solution with a team of fifty-seven people, including cybersecurity engineers and cloud experts, along with support from customer service.

Implementing CloudGuard has resulted in an excellent return on investment over one hundred percent ROI. It has saved costs in our security team, saved potential security breach costs, and enhanced client satisfaction.

The pricing and licensing are expensive, costing between seven thousand to eight thousand dollars. While it offers good features like threat prediction management, reducing the cost will make it more accessible to a broader audience.

We have not used other network security solutions before Check Point CloudGuard.

It is important to prioritize security if managing data in multi-cloud environments. Having a technical team familiar with cloud security is recommended. Working closely with Check Point's support team can help in navigating complex terminologies and enhancing security across cloud platforms.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Other

I need to protect cloud security for my company or customers. I protect their cloud infrastructure and any applications they have on the cloud. This is the main concept of cloud networking, where we use Check Point Firewalls in the cloud.

It makes my life easier. I have on-prem and cloud firewalls. I can use the same policies in both places. 

It is a full-featured firewall on the cloud. The best feature is that it is the same software used on-premises. It's like having a full-blown firewall in CloudGuard. 

It is the same policy used on-premises, seamlessly pushed to the cloud. I have the same principles in the cloud. Security features allow control in areas usually not available, filling the gap with firewalls to secure operations. Overall, it greatly improves posture and internal operations.

Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid and cloud as well as on-prem. Once again, this is about having the same policies. It's seamless. There are the same configurations, the same principles, et cetera. 

It's helped us reduce organizational risk and improve security posture. We have robust security on the cloud to secure everything. It helps improve posture and internal operations.

I would focus on the implementation in the cloud, as it relies on third-party vendors like Azure and AWS. It's not seamless; the solution should be more straightforward for complicated environments.

I have been using it for the last two to three years actively. 

It is stable. I did not experience any downtime, and I hope I won't have any.

Regarding scalability, I set up a firewall in the cloud and left it operating. Nothing happens to it without intervention. We perform minor and major upgrades, and it works seamlessly. It is very good.

I have a very good relationship with customer support. They are like my best friends - especially those on level three and four. How would I would rate them a solid eight out of ten.

Positive

I did not use a different solution previously. We chose this over options offered by our cloud vendors since the policy management is strong. I don't have to redo everything from scratch. Also, since I have been using Check Point for many years, it was very easy for me to use the same product that I use on-prem in the cloud.

The licensing is bit pricey. Check Point is expensive, however, with the features and capabilities, I can justify the cost.

I'm an end-user, partner, and reseller of CloudGuard.

The same features used on premises apply to the cloud. It makes my life easier with consistent policies and configurations. It's a fair option. 

Overall, I would give the product an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Other

I am quite satisfied with it, as it secures our virtual environment in both CloudGuard and on-premises. The business case was that we have several customers transitioning from on-premises to cloud solutions, and we wanted to have the same visibility and security in CloudGuard as we had on-premises.

We wouldn't have the same visibility or granularity if we didn't have Check Point. 

We have very good visibility or granularity regarding security. 

Since we are using the same management both on-premises and in the cloud, we did not need to create other security measures or learn new technology. This allows me to achieve the same results with our existing resources.

It's quite interesting to see all the new features being added to the solution. I plan to do more integration with the CloudGuard-specific elements within the new policy framework. Although I do not remember the specific name, there is a feature that involves a revision of the policies. That will be our next addition.

We have visibility both on the cloud and on-prem, and we are very satisfied with that. 

It's helped us with our security posture. We have the visibility. We have the possibility to deploy new stuff. We also used the data center dynamic objects. So when we tag solutions, they get the policies they should have from the setup.

It's easy to use and deploy. 

I'm quite satisfied with the solution. I don't have any notes for improvements. 

I have used the solution for five or six years, maybe.

I haven't had any issues regarding our cloud environment. It is completely stable with no downtime. 

It's not a scale set. It's a single node. We'd need to look at the scale set to see if there was a way to get better performance. 

I have been a Check Point customer for quite some time. We do not use other solutions. 

The initial setup did not take too long. I am unsure of the exact duration, however, I was up and running in about an hour. It was very straightforward and almost plug-and-play.

Everything could be cheaper, of course. 

There are cloud-native options. During setup, we had quite a few people telling us we should just use cloud-native solutions. However, we wanted the same security measures on-cloud and on-prem. It would have been cheaper to stay with cloud-native; however, to have visibility in the same place is important. 

People might just use a cloud-native solution since they are already there and cost less. However, my priority was to maintain visibility and consistent security measures in the cloud as on-premises rather than focusing on cost. The unified management from one platform and centralized visibility are invaluable to me.

I am quite satisfied with the solution, and I do not have significant suggestions for its improvement at this point. The product team appreciates feedback, and fortunately, I have comprehensive playbooks for deploying new solutions. The process is straightforward, especially with the dynamic data center objects. When solutions are tagged, they automatically receive the appropriate policies. 

Overall, it is an excellent solution, and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud