Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

What I appreciate is that centralized management is obtained from SmartConsole with MDS, which seems very positive to me, as that is the strongest point. With that, you can have threat prevention with the blades, IPS, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Virus. I think it is very well integrated, and also for ClusterXL for high availability, it works very well; it is very reliable.

The primary impact we have had is the ability to manage security policies in a centralized manner for multiple customers from a single platform, because this significantly reduces operational time when performing, for example, rule changes or policy updates. What is more important is the availability from ClusterXL, which allows you to have production environments without service interruptions—that is, business continuity. Additionally, the threat prevention capabilities, and what I like most is that they have added a robust protection layer without the need for third-party solutions; everything is very well contained there. I estimate a reduction of between 30% and 40% in management time compared to solutions without multi-domain centralized management.

I use it in multitenant environments with an MDS architecture, the Multi-Domain Management, to manage security policies in a centralized manner for different organizations at the same time.

As I mentioned in the previous section, what I think are the best features it has is centralized management from SmartConsole with MDS. I think that is the strongest point it has, because you can have threat prevention with the blades, as I mentioned, IPS, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Virus, which are very well integrated. The ClusterXL function for high availability works very well. As I said, it is very reliable, very intuitive, and I think it is a very good tool.

What seems very good to me, as I mentioned, is the integration it has for threat prevention with the IPS, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Virus blades. That seems to be its best integration. It is very intuitive—significantly, even if you come from other firewalls, this is very intuitive; you can manage it without any problem. You do not have to learn absolutely everything from scratch. I think this part is very well integrated.

What I would like, what I think they should improve a little is the management of objects at large scale. When you work with multiple domains, there are thousands of network objects. Detecting duplicates and consistency across domains is a very manual process that should be more automated. Another thing: the SmartConsole interface is very powerful and very good, but the learning curve, compared to other solutions in the market from other manufacturers, could be modernized. I think it does not necessarily have to be done from a client application; it could be done via web, because via web I know that not all the options you have in SmartConsole are available. So it would be good if it could also be done from the web and all the options were available. Another thing that I would really like is more automation with Ansible or Terraform. I know it has improved in recent versions, but I think it is still not mature enough. Compared to other manufacturers that do have a bit more in terms of automation capabilities in integration flows with Ansible or Terraform, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) could improve. Another thing that could be improved a little would be the TAC response time, because when there are very complex cases, I think there should be more speed initially, more ownership of those urgent cases, and not leave the customer waiting. This has happened to me: when I have cases open with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) TAC, sometimes they do not respond and I have to keep insisting, and I think that part should improve. I do not know if it depends on who takes the ticket or on the severity of the ticket, but sometimes I have had to insist a lot, and that would be the only problem. Once they attend to me and become involved in the case, the responses they give are very professional and really help directly resolve the problems when there is a bug or troubleshooting to do.

As I said, I would like to see a specific improvement in SmartConsole. I think if they improved it—how to say it—gave it a facelift so you could access all the options directly from a browser, that would be great, because sometimes, for one reason or another, you cannot download SmartConsole or, for some reason, the SmartConsole client does not start correctly, and you could do it directly from the browser. I think that would be a good option to improve. Another thing would be that in multidomain environments, I would like a global search function for objects and rules. That is, you could enter and search across all domains at once, because right now you have to go domain by domain, and in environments with many customers, you spend quite a bit of time; you have to exit one domain and enter another. So those would be the improvements I would like to see.

I have been working for approximately fifteen years since I began in the world of networking and cybersecurity.

I think it is a stable platform, and that is precisely one of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security)'s strengths. What I have seen is that when there is a bug that may limit functionality or a bug that affects Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) directly, I see it directly from the Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) interface—from SmartConsole or from Gaia—when you log in, it automatically shows you what bug appears and what the solution is. I think that is a great feature: the firewall itself, Gaia itself, tells you: "Look, there is this error, this problem; verify if your device is affected; if so, here is the solution." So I think it is very stable in that respect.

I think scalability is one of its strong points, especially in enterprise environments with growth. The horizontal scalability of the MDS architecture allows you to add new management domains and new gateways without impacting existing environments. In terms of vertical scalability, physical appliances and virtual machines allow you to increase processing resources. If traffic or processing needs increase, you can scale up. In Azure environments, we have adjusted instance sizes without service interruption. Where I do think there are some scalability limitations is in the management of objects and rules. When the system grows a lot, I see that policy compilation does get stuck; it feels there is a bottleneck. That scalability in the management of objects and rules is a negative point for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because you see a very significant operational bottleneck in very large environments with many client companies.

I think the most critical point is the initial response time. For cases of medium severity, which are the most frequent in day-to-day operations, response times are usually very slow, sometimes many hours. You open a case one day and the next day you still do not have a response. However, once the technicians take the ticket, I think they are very professional. We have done updates, troubleshooting sessions, log reviews, rule changes and networking changes, many things. I think TAC of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is very competent; they really know what they are doing. But in terms of agility in the response, I think the problem is in the first line of support: the person who initially manages the incidents. I think that is where the problem is and where they could improve so that tickets are immediately redirected to engineers and then a quick solution can be provided. I think the bottleneck is in the first-line support, and that could be improved, because once a specialist engineer takes the ticket, they are very professional and resolve it. They are engineers who are there every day consulting, asking questions, working with you, and they do not leave you alone with the incident or the case you opened.

Before we used, for example, solutions from Cisco ASA and, in other cases, Fortinet, as they did not offer a multitenant management model as mature as Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) MDS. So when the number of customers and devices grew significantly, it became evident that we needed a platform or tool that would allow us to manage all these completely isolated domains from a single console without compromising the separation between customers. That is when we made this migration.

I have used other manufacturers. For example, I have a lot of experience with Palo Alto, and you could say that the main difference is the user experience when using Panorama as the centralized management console, which is like an MDS. It has a more modern and intuitive interface than SmartConsole, which, I repeat, I think should be web and should have a facelift. I have been using SmartConsole since 2018 or 2019, and it looks very similar now that we are in 2026; many years have passed. Another point is the visibility of applications with App-ID; it is very well integrated into the security policy from the beginning, while in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) it requires more configuration to reach a similar level. For example, in multitenant environments with MDS, I feel that Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is much better than Panorama for managing many customers in an isolated manner. We also use Fortinet, whose equivalent would be FortiManager, but it also has many complexities. I think Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) surpasses Fortinet in threat prevention and the inspection engine; I think Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is much better than Fortinet. With Cisco Firewalls, with the FMC, Cisco has many shortcomings; I do not like Cisco much. I do not think the firewalls and the FMC are Cisco's strength. You need a very high learning curve to manage an FMC or Cisco Firepower Firewalls because within Firepower there are several layers of firewall—FTD and other derivatives of that—so Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is very intuitive compared to Cisco. In conclusion, we could say that Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is not easy to use, nor is it economical, but it is very robust and very mature in complex enterprise environments.

This could be when migrations are carried out.

For several customers, but I will mention one: when a migration to a centralized architecture with MDS was performed. The customer asked us to unify the management of multiple gateways distributed geographically, because before, each policy change required manual intervention on each individual device; instead, with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) and centralized management, changes propagate simultaneously to absolutely all gateways—that is, all the firewalls that are distributed geographically across several cities from a single console. This drastically reduces time; we went from using hours to minutes, and we also eliminated errors of inconsistency between devices. It is one thing to create several rules and then have to replicate them on multiple firewalls, or create objects and have to replicate them, but now with this, what you do is create a single rule, a single object, a single network and propagate it to the rest of the firewalls. This way you maintain, you could say, a single object, a single rule that is the same for everyone. This eliminates human errors such as a missing IP, a different rule name, misconfigured IP ranges, or ports, those things.

We are not partners or resellers at this moment; we simply have some equipment, some customers who use these tools.

Based on the complexity and growth of users and the geographic distribution of offices—and ultimately we opted for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). I think there is a long-term return that would be very beneficial for a company. I also think they should take into account the issue of updates. If they are already going with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), they must be very careful when testing Jumbo Hotfixes and upgrades by doing it first in a preproduction environment, thoroughly reading the notes for each version, and verifying that the bugs that exist between one version and another are fixed in the new update. If necessary, consult directly with TAC of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security); they have helped me a lot when I have had doubts about version upgrades. TAC is very friendly and answers all these questions without problems, and I think that is a very good option. As for licenses, hardware, and training, you have to do a prior analysis so that the engineers who are going to be in charge of the licenses and the solution to be acquired fully understand what is needed and what is going to be deployed.

As for costs, as I mentioned, it is a bit mixed, because we have to be honest. For licenses, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has a blade-based model, which seems flexible in theory, but in practice can become expensive when you need to activate multiple security features. Each additional blade—IPS, Anti-Bot, Anti-Virus, URL Filtering, and Application Control—increases the cost. You buy a package of licenses of a certain level, but then you realize you need additional capabilities and the cost scales. As for the cost of implementation, it is higher than with other manufacturers; you also need very detailed planning, and I think that when it is multidomain, it is a product that you cannot deploy in a few days. You need planning months in advance. However, I can say that once it is implemented, it works wonderfully. Before reaching that point where everything works perfectly, you clearly have to plan months in advance so that nothing is left out during the migration. It is not the most economical solution in the market, but for complex enterprise environments I think the investment is justified because it is very robust and has been in the market for many years.

We always looked at several options. We evaluated Palo Alto with Panorama first. The second option was FortiManager from Fortinet, and we also looked at Cisco Firewalls with its manager, which is the FMC. In the end, we put everything on the scale—what best covered our needs based on the complexity and growth of users and the geographic distribution of offices—and ultimately we opted for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

I think if they are considering investing in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), they should first look at the initial design of the architecture they are going to use or that they are going to need. Based on that, they should go directly with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), because I think it is a product where initial architectural decisions have a very large impact on long-term operability. If you build a solid foundation with the architecture you need, I think Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is a very good solution and, in the long term, will be a better ally than other manufacturers. However, this is achieved by working hand in hand with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) engineers, and if it is implemented very well from the beginning, the investment is very good. I think there is a long-term return that would be very beneficial for a company. I would rate this review a 9 out of 10.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is the main manager that provides network security in different forms in my organization. The primary task that Check Point solves is serving as the main means of network security.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has several classes of modules. The main modules include Firewall, Antivirus, Anti-Bot, URL Filtering, the IPS module, and Identity Awareness, which is tightly integrated into our organization and ensures connectivity of corporate users with the corporate network, allowing us to create dynamic sessions and policies.

In our practice, we use a single common profile for all gateways in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), which allows us to unify all policies and, with the help of sections, display what accesses exist for particular services.

The Identity Awareness module helps our company by allowing us to have approximately fifty Active Directory controllers. We have deployed three Identity Awareness controllers, which are connected to all our security gateways. It works on the principle that when a user logs into their device, data about their current IP address and login is written to the Active Directory logs. The Identity Awareness controller integration reads them and sends them to the security gateway. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) then queries the Active Directory controller, pulls in all the user's groups, and allows access for each user based on their Active Directory groups, which makes it possible to create dynamic policies and dynamic accesses.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is also used to provide VPN access for engineers. At the moment, we are no longer using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) together with other Check Point solutions. Previously, we had approximately five projects integrated with Check Point. We used their IA (Identity and Access) solutions, their analyzers, and also their endpoint client at the workstation level.

The main benefit and main advantage of using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is that we use unified security approaches both on on-premises segments and in the cloud. We have the same set of policies applied to different types of gateways—both physical and virtual. A unified approach greatly simplifies the administration of the entire network.

By default, most companies do not use separate firewalling solutions in the cloud at all. They use basic functions such as security groups, NACLs, target evaluation, and similar tools. This is sufficient for them. However, all these solutions do not allow the network to be protected from more advanced attacks above standard firewalling. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) or any NGFW solution makes it possible to protect against a large number of attacks at the IPS, antivirus, and anti-bot level. If there is a sandbox—SandBlast—then the solution can also inspect what is inside the packets themselves to maximally protect the corporate network. By default, cloud-native solutions do not provide this capability.

The main limitations of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) are not in Check Point itself but in the cloud platforms on which it is deployed. Because not all clouds have L2 infrastructure, you cannot build a unified clustering system everywhere. As a result, the problem usually is not with Check Point, but with the cloud.

The main problem with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is that it uses a separate thick client instead of a browser. A browser-based SmartConsole exists, but it still has a number of limitations, while the thick client, the so-called SmartConsole, often works unstably, freezes, and has to be restarted.

I do not recommend using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as a VPN hub for site-to-site VPN because it is inconvenient to monitor the state of its tunnels, especially visually. It does not have a convenient snap-in and everything can be checked only via the console, which is very inconvenient. Check Point is not the most universal solution as a device that provides routing and administration capabilities in addition to security. It is an excellent firewall, but it has a number of limitations in terms of routing and in creating VPN sessions, especially in terms of displaying their states.

I have been in my current position for more than seven years.

Regarding the firewall of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), I would rate it an eight because of its not always stable operation. As a universal device that provides both security and some routing functions, I would rate it a seven.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is an excellent central firewall. At the same time, it has some limitations in terms of optimization at the level of displaying VPN-tunnel operation. It also has a more complicated approach to building clusters. Unlike Fortinet, for example, it does not allow you to simply make an active-passive configuration using a shared config. Its clustering approach uses the presence of two IP addresses on each node and necessarily one shared virtual IP address using a VRRP-like architecture. I consider this inconvenient, especially when you need to swap nodes or when the role of each node changes.

I handled the entire technical part of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security); a separate manager was responsible for licensing and handled all licensing issues for all products, so that was not my area of responsibility.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) still has many additional tools that are not fully integrated into SmartConsole. To get to some specific Check Point functions, you have to open additional consoles, which is very inconvenient. The thick client, SmartConsole, is not maximally stable. It often freezes and requires a lot of resources.

I do consider Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) to be a stable solution, but I also believe that Check Point requires constant monitoring and timely reaction to possible failures.

Check Point has two solutions: cluster and Maestro. ClusterXL is initially intended for a certain volume of traffic. Maestro technology allows you to scale out the firewall group and expand the capabilities of the logical group.

The work of Check Point's customer support for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) varies. We had a large number of cases with Check Point. There were cases that were solved fairly quickly. There were very long ones. There are still cases that we have not closed, but we are no longer actively dealing with them—we have found workarounds to temporarily close certain problems.

In my practice, I have also used Fortinet's solution, which is also very stable. Fortinet uses the same approaches as Check Point; it has one and the same operating system across its devices. Unlike Check Point, Fortinet has a number of advantages and a number of limitations. The main advantage is its versatility: it acts as both a firewall and a router, works perfectly with VPN, but in terms of security class, it has limitations. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), as a firewall, has a number of advantages. If you analyze the datasheets provided by Check Point and Fortinet, Fortinet greatly inflates its performance figures.

I have also used solutions from Fortinet and Cisco ASA before moving to Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because it provides more capabilities in terms of security and deeper analysis, as well as more detailed troubleshooting options. At the same time, it has some limitations in terms of performance and stability, which I have already mentioned.

We have had all possible options for deploying Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). Approximately sixty percent are solutions represented as Quantum (CloudGuard) in configurations like VSX and standalone. We had solutions integrated with VMware NSX, but we have already abandoned them because VMware no longer supports such architectures. Forty percent of our current firewalls are firewalls deployed in public clouds—Azure and AWS.

We initially purchased Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) with licenses from AWS, and later we switched to purchasing licenses from an integrator and changed the licensing approach from pure cloud to external licensing.

The main investment effect and everything I can say is that for all the time of my personal work at companies, our services have never been hacked with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). There were many attempts, they were all logged, but there were no successful hacks. This is the main benefit we gained from working with this product.

Since we use a unified standard for using policies and modules in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), we can clearly plan which modules we need to activate on a particular gateway for its maximum effective use and cost savings. It does not make sense to activate all blades on all gateways. In our architecture, we have two types of gateways: external and corporate. The corporate ones are more heavily loaded, so they have slightly weaker protection. The external ones are less loaded; therefore, they are maximally protected, and almost all possible Check Point blades are activated for them.

By default, most companies do not use separate firewalling solutions in the cloud at all. They use basic functions such as security groups, NACLs, target evaluation, and similar tools. This is sufficient for them. However, all these solutions do not allow the network to be protected from more advanced attacks above standard firewalling. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) or any NGFW solution makes it possible to protect against a large number of attacks at the IPS, antivirus, and anti-bot level. If there is a sandbox—SandBlast—then the solution can also inspect what is inside the packets themselves to maximally protect the corporate network. By default, cloud-native solutions do not provide this capability.

My advice to other professionals who are considering using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is to treat it exactly as a firewall. It is an excellent fit for some central nodes, data centers, and core levels. As a universal device, especially a small universal device, I would not recommend it because of the complex cluster configuration and also, in some cases, more complex troubleshooting. In particular, it has issues with role changes at the cluster level when older Check Point versions, the so-called R80.x and earlier, are used.

I really hope that in the future, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) will abandon the thick client and be able to fully switch to working only via the web interface, and also improve the operation of site-to-site VPN in terms of displaying tunnel states. This is the main problem I have encountered. At the same time, the logging system is excellent, and the troubleshooting system is also very good, but the client's operation definitely has room for improvement. I would rate this review an eight overall.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is a cloud-native application protection platform and a suite of multiple products. We primarily use it for our hybrid multi-cloud environment, primarily around cloud environments. The deployments for different clients were a bit different. For one of the clients, it was just a single cloud vendor, which I believe was AWS, and then multi-organizations with hierarchical architecture.

The intent was to manage hundreds or perhaps thousands of EC2 instances and Kubernetes workloads, EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service), and a lot of PaaS applications, Infrastructure as a Service, container registries, and ECR. The end result was to understand the overall security posture of the cloud, figure out if there are any deviations, and make sure that there is no zero-day and all the detections are in place. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is a typical CNAPP suite that comprises cloud workload protection, runtime security, and code quality checks, not just your typical SonarQube or SAST, but definitely something that can integrate with your VCS.

The advantages of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as a service provider include the platformization story that every single major security provider is doing, something similar to what Palo Alto does.

Check Point had lacked this particular capability in their product stack, so they brought in CloudGuard, integrated it, and used many of the Check Point next-gen firewalls capabilities, along with threat intelligence. This typically brings a lot of other security solutions together, gearing it primarily for the cloud and multi-cloud environment.

With regards to capabilities, it helps detect any attacks that typically fall under the zero-day category. I would not focus on signature-based scanning because that is something everyone can do practically. You can build policies to avoid unintended exposure of storage buckets, sensitive data disclosure, and manage misconfigured policies or privileges that are quite extensive, not following the least privilege principle. It also takes care of that.

Check Point has augmented many API security capabilities as well. If you are hosting any APIs using AWS PaaS services, such as API Gateway Lambda, even on-premises, it can fairly detect standard web vulnerabilities, OWASP Top 10, and all of that. I think that is decent as well. We have pretty much got most of them.

Regarding organizational risk, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is definitely meant for improved visibility and risk mitigation. If you have got multi-cloud environments, you cannot use cloud-native services efficiently and effectively because you look at two or three different clouds with controls scattered across them. You do not have a centralized pane of glass, and you do not know what happens to a particular traffic flow if it is moving from one cloud to another. This product is not just Check Point that does this; Palo Alto and Wiz also provide similar solutions to an extent. You get an entire view of it, knowing what controls already exist, which helps build additional policies and definitely aids in risk mitigation.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is definitely lagging behind its peers. I am not sure what the reason is. Compared to Palo Alto, they are not there in terms of capabilities and feature set. I do not think there are any obvious misses, but there is mostly lesser adoption in the industry.

Regarding the negatives, sometimes we encounter challenges, especially if a feature may not be working, but that is typical of any vendor. There is no glaring gap; it is a solid product, but based on my experience, the adoption has not been on par with what its peers are doing.

From time to time, we do face challenges with some features, especially if you need to configure a policy where you may need false positive fine-tuning. Sometimes, you have these anomaly detections, which are crucial from a zero-day attack perspective, but they can create a lot of false positives. When you have to tweak, you sometimes need to bring in technical assistance or professional services to achieve what you want. The documentation may not be quite sufficient. There were instances in the past, but I am not sure if they have ramped it up quite significantly recently.

I have been dealing with the product for about three and a half to four years, starting after COVID for sure. It happened sometime back in 2022, which was the first time that we saw and used that as a comparison with Palo Alto and other firewall products, Cisco Secure Firewall. Check Point ramped up a lot of its capabilities, including CNAPP and all the additional detections that it can bring in, threat prevention, and then adding on visibility, deep packet inspection, and things of that nature. So it has been about four to four and a half years now.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) was stable; we never had any outages because of it, so definitely stable. We had a couple of instances, but I would not count that against Check Point since that is typical for most vendors. We raised a couple of feature requests that they introduced in later releases, which made us happy. Nothing glaringly bad; it was mostly stable. Because it is more of a CNAPP solution, it will not disrupt significantly, and we had a very conservative configuration, especially regarding preventive controls.

The product is super easy to scale; just talk to PS. If you do it on day zero, then that is really great. Wanting to do it afterward is possible, but you have to plan it well.

The technical support is great. When working with an EMEA client, the majority of the TAC was based out of Israel, and they are fantastic with quick resolutions and turnaround times.

I would rate Check Point's support nine out of ten; they are really good.

I have tried both Check Point Cloud and other providers such as AWS. If I were not under strict regulatory jurisdiction, I would prefer Check Point Cloud itself, as you get better support and they own the infrastructure. Troubleshooting becomes simple, and they seamlessly take care of the pre-provisioning of the underlying infrastructure. However, for a few clients in financial services with strict regulatory requirements, we had to create it on our infrastructure.

The deployment of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is very seamless. It learns when you operate in monitoring mode on day zero and day one, understanding the lay of the land, checking what services you have, tweaking them, and applying policy compliance templates like PCI DSS or HIPAA. You can use all those templates to start configuring your policies, so it is pretty robust. Day zero is smooth, just API integration, service principal, and API keys. If you need to integrate with GitHub or other platforms, there are additional integrations, but it serves the purpose by default.

The deployment procedure for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is straightforward and takes only a couple of minutes for initial integrations. Fine-tuning takes some time because every environment is different, and you must first understand what the product does and its capabilities before tailoring the configuration. But it is really straightforward, and they have it well documented. If you are using very unusual SaaS applications or non-standard configurations, that might take a bit more time, but that is the same for most others.

You cannot compare ROI from one vendor to another definitively, but if I compare against capabilities that I never had before bringing in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), then there is quite a decent ROI. The product itself is cheap; whatever capabilities that you get are significant. Low cost significantly brings a decent ROI. Additionally, because you have a centralized pane of glass to manage the entire infrastructure, the cloud security piece reduces the workforce needed for management, which definitely contributes to ROI.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is comparatively conservative in terms of pricing; it is not a very expensive product. If you are a Check Point shop with multiple products throughout your infrastructure and have a good relationship with a decent reseller, then I think their pricing is much more conservative compared to Palo Alto and a couple of other vendors.

If you look at adoption, if you have got ten clients, then seven or eight of them go with Palo Alto, and the remainder get scattered between Cisco and Check Point.

If you are a Check Point shop, then it integrates really well. The basic integrations that you have with identity and access management and SIEM solutions or SOAR platforms work well. All decent vendors have playbooks that center around Check Point, so I think those are decent and not a challenge. There are a lot of out-of-the-box integrations available, and if you want to build custom integrations, you can work with the TAC or professional services and get that done. If you are a Check Point shop in its entirety, if you have got CloudGuard, Harmony, and the old Check Point UTMs or next-gen firewalls, all of them stitch seamlessly together.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is available through the AWS marketplace, and if you have got a committed spend, you can use that toward purchasing via the marketplace. While I have not used it personally, it was communicated as an option available by our resellers.

I would rate Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) somewhere around seven or eight overall. The adoption is a bit low, which makes me curious about the roadmap; if you have a great market share, you typically see a very decent number of feature releases coming out all the time. Considering stability, ROI, and other factors, I think seven is a fair rating.

Our primary use case for Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is for securing our multi-cloud environment, AWS, Azure, by providing continuous posture management, threat detection, and compliance monitoring. We use it to identify misconfigurations, enforce security best practices, and monitor cloud workloads in real-time. It also helps us with vulnerability scanning and keeping our environment compliant to frameworks such as CIS, GDPR, etc.

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP flagged a misconfiguration in our AWS S3 bucket that had overly permissive access settings. That configuration could have exposed our sensitive data to the public internet. The platform not only identified the issue but also provided remediation that our team was able to apply immediately. This prevented a potential data exposure.

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP offers a unified, modular platform that combines CSPM, CWPP, CIEM, code security, and cloud detection and response. The agentless workload posture, real-time threat detection and response, multi-cloud coverage and visibility, compliance automation, and one-click remediations stand out as its best features.

I find myself relying on the risk management engine and prioritization the most day-to-day. In any cloud environment, you are flooded with findings, misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and compliance gaps. Without prioritization, it is overwhelming for our team to take care of the posture. CloudGuard's risk scoring helps us cut through incidents. This makes remediation faster and focused instead of wasting time checking every alert. We get to fix the issues that pose real business risks.

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP has positively impacted our organization at a significant level. We get greater visibility and control across all our cloud environments. Some biggest benefits we have seen are faster detection and remediation of misconfigurations, improved compliance posture, reduced risk exposure, operational efficiency, and cost savings. Overall, it has made our cloud environment more secure, compliant, and easier to manage while freeing up our teams to focus on projects instead of chasing alerts.

Areas of improvement for Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP can be the UI navigation. The dashboard is feature-rich, but it can sometimes feel overwhelming. A more streamlined or customizable view would help teams focus on the highest priority risks more quickly. While it integrates with AWS and GCP, deeper integration with DevOps and third-party SIEM tools could make workflows even smoother. For first-time users, the documentation could be more intuitive or hands-on.

Positive

I previously used different solutions, specifically native cloud security tools such as AWS Security Hub and Azure Security Center with manual compliance checks. While they provided some visibility, they lacked a unified multi-cloud view and deep threat prevention capabilities. We switched to Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP because it consolidated compliance, posture management, and threat protection, reducing tool sprawl and giving us stronger coverage across AWS and GCP.

We have seen measurable outcomes since using Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP, with time saving being a significant outcome. We reduced manual compliance checks by about 40 to 50%, saving our team 10 to 12 hours per week. The compliance has improved as our overall compliance score against CIS benchmark has improved from around 72 to 92% within the first three months of adoption. We also saw a drop in recurring misconfigurations after enabling continuous posture management and automated guardrails.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that the pricing model is flexible and consumption-based, which makes it easier to align with our cloud. The setup cost was moderate, not too heavy. In terms of ROI, we can see time savings for audit preparation of at least 30-40%.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP an eight out of ten, because it is powerful and reliable, but still has room for polish.

I provided this rating because it delivers strong visibility, compliance, and misconfiguration detection, but there are still areas that could be refined such as complex UI navigation, integration gaps, and alert fatigue.

If you are considering Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP, start by clearly mapping out your cloud environments and compliance needs. The platform is effective for leveraging single visibility across AWS, Azure, GCP. Ensure you integrate all accounts early on. Take time to configure policies to match your organization's compliance framework such as CIS, GDPR, PCI. This saves a lot of effort later.

My usual use cases for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) involve onboarding as an energy company, where it acts as the cloud-native security platform that extends the traditional firewall and threat prevention capabilities into public cloud environments like AWS, Azure, or GCP. We set up a virtual security gateway inside our cloud network to provide unified policy management, advanced threat prevention, segmentation for the network, and visibility across the cloud and system. From an administrator standpoint, it protects the workload, inspects traffic, and enforces the necessary rules. Day-to-day, my responsibilities include logging, monitoring, and policy control for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), making it a strong fit for our organization, especially in the energy sector where we need critical systems to stay up to date throughout twenty-four seven.

For secure cloud migration, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) integrates seamlessly across AWS, Azure, and GCP, supporting auto-scaling, native logging, and automation, making it a strong fit for our organization while modernizing our infrastructure and maintaining strict compliance requirements. Using this tool helps us avoid complications like needing to prove compliance for SOC 1 or SOC 2, as these platforms are already compliant.

I would say Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is valuable due to its hybrid cloud security features. It offers granular policy management across the on-premises and cloud environments, giving administrators consistent control for configuration drift. We need to change the policy and the inbound and outbound traffic settings, indicating what traffic must be blocked or allowed, and this capability with Check Point provides significant input into our security strategy.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) provides unified security management across both hybrid clouds and on-premises environments. Unified security management affects my security operations positively, as we maintain critical systems on the cloud that require strong security and air gap networks. This cloud-native routing and policy installation helps close gaps in protecting critical applications and environments from exposure to the public cloud.

From an administrator's perspective, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) enhances our organization with clearer and more intuitive logging, making decisions easier to understand without deep investigation. In the CloudGuard UI, I can see which threats have triggered alerts, and this information is available on the unified dashboard that provides details of the threat analysis upon alert. As a small team, we log into the console to check specific alerts for high or low network usage or machine shutdowns. If needed, I tune the configuration policy, and the visualizing tools with reporting functionality simplify tracking changes made on the firewall, including the relevant source IP or device names. We ingest logs into our SIEM for detailed oversight, which allows us to monitor any administrative changes.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has significantly reduced our organizational risk. We clearly understand our threat landscape and the associated risks. Onboarding the CloudGuard solution directly into our cloud environment has significantly lowered the risks throughout the network and it is easy to launch. When we assess our security posture with third-party assessments, we gain granular visibility into our network pre- and post-CloudGuard installation, showing how we have addressed significant risks and secured vulnerabilities.

I find troubleshooting a bit challenging with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security); one area needing improvement is log clarity, as sometimes policy installation takes longer than expected, and resolving cloud-native routing conflicts requires advanced knowledge due to the differences in how AWS and GCP operate.

The UI is significantly good and user-friendly, but adding more advanced features to the reporting perspective, especially concerning administrative changes, would be beneficial. However, these points are not deal-breaking feedback; they would just be beneficial for future releases.

I have been experienced with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for five to seven years throughout my career because I need to check the logs for what is coming in, setting up the policy, and I have been experienced with the firewall on my current job as well. Any traffic that needs to be allowed or any application that needs to be allowed is configured through the firewall. The inbound and outbound traffic to the network is configured through the firewall.

Specifically, I have been working with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for four to five years.

For reliability, I note that Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) maintains ninety-nine point nine percent uptime and availability, providing us nearly a hundred percent uptime with constant traffic monitoring. Although it may occasionally experience downtime, it remains strong in both reliability and scalability.

Regarding improvements in reliability and stability, I do not see any need as everything performs well. No improvements are necessary in the areas of reliability and stability; they have been consistently good.

Regarding scalability, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) proves efficient; I find no issues scaling up as our growing company sees increased traffic. It is capable of managing the increased load and performs well as our needs expand.

I have opened a troubleshooting ticket for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), and so far, I have had a positive experience; the support team usually responds within twenty-four hours, and they escalate cases, providing instant feedback for priority issues. In urgent situations, I can call and receive support promptly, receiving recommendations or guidance for the issues we encounter.

I would rate the technical support of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as eight out of ten.

On the POC, I looked at SonicWall and Palo Alto firewalls as competitors. We found Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) to be better because it has a robust threat prevention system, and onboarding is straightforward compared to SonicWall. We are a small security team, and we prefer not to rely on a security operation center that would help narrow down issues. It takes just a few clicks to bring the firewall up and running, allowing us to set up policies without requiring complicated knowledge or extensive training. In contrast, using Palo Alto and SonicWall requires specific training for policy creation.

I have worked with Palo Alto and SonicWall firewalls but we found that Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) offers a better pricing standpoint and security solution overall.

I participated in the initial setup of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). The initial setup of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), from an integration standpoint, is straightforward. We began with vendor searches, narrowing down to three candidates, including SonicWall and Check Point.

After moving forward with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), we contacted them to set up a cloud VM installation, which is quite straightforward. Coordination with their representative involves scheduling calls for setting up policies and traffic management, and we test it in the QA environment before moving to production with all necessary policy modifications.

I continue to collaborate with the Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) team to ensure everything runs smoothly, and there is always room for improvement, especially as we reach out to them for support or new features.

We have encountered a few subscription-based licensing models for the virtual gateway and security enablement. We have opted for a three-year contract with fixed pricing for the CloudGuard cost structure, which has enterprise-grade capabilities. Although the pricing is slightly high for smaller organizations, it offers enterprise-level security, indicating a need for improvement in the pricing model.

In making the choice between the three products, we prioritize managing risk and the threat landscape, along with compliance and reporting capabilities. Pricing is the first consideration, followed by how well each solution meets our compliance needs, and finally, the reporting capabilities to match enterprise-level requirements.

I have given Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) an overall review rating of ten out of ten.

We are the system integrator for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

We work with the BFSI, Bank and Finance domain, government segment, as well as corporate industry. In the BFSI and bank and finance sectors, we have deployed this solution to multiple customers including many corporate banks, financial institutes, and trading companies. Most trading companies are using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) from our side, and we have deployed it for multiple customers.

For application control, intrusion prevention, IPS, anti-bot, sandboxing, zero-day attacks, Zero Trust Network, ZTNA, and multiple features including remote access, encryption communication, and secure integration with Active Directory and LDAP, our customers typically use this solution.

Smart console and centralized policy management are the most valuable and useful features of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). This is the best feature in Check Point along with logging, monitoring, and event monitoring features.

Customers are using it for multiple users, multiple applications, multiple sites, URLs, and many other things. Therefore, they need complete visibility. When logs are collected centrally, a central administrator and central log manager can pull all the details and use them whenever an audit occurs or any kind of compliance is required; they can pull those details easily.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has multiple models available based on user base and user count, including 1530, 1570, and 1590. These are all Quantum Cloud Firewall models, and the Quantum series and 7000 series are also available.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has features that other products do not have, including a very good email security solution. Customers want to switch from those products to Check Point because it has comprehensive email security solutions, and Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) covers that as well. Check Point Harmony Collaboration is the best solution for email security.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is already good in the enterprise segment and corporate industries. However, they should have some smaller appliances for some small SMB customers.

I have been working with this product specifically for the last 12 years.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is a really stable firewall from both hardware and application perspectives, so I do not anticipate finding any challenges with power fluctuations or anything else that might go wrong. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is rugged and does not crash.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has multiple models available based on user base and user count, including 1530, 1570, and 1590. These are all Quantum Cloud Firewall models, and the Quantum series and 7000 series are also available.

I do not often communicate with the technical support of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because we have our expert team that implements those solutions themselves.

Customers were using other solutions such as Sophos and Fortinet before they migrated to Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). The transition was very easy for them as they received all the details in a single dashboard, in a single pane of situation, and all the details are available in log event management solutions.

Customers typically used Fortinet, Sophos, and SonicWall before using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

I do participate in the initial setup of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

There is no complexity in the implementation for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security); it is easy to configure.

I have not faced many challenges during the initial setup; it has always been straightforward and simple.

We are the system integrator for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is definitely a cost-effective solution. When customers buy it and when they expand on this technology, it definitely gives them ROI, return on investment.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is easy to implement, easy to use, easy to install, and easy to configure, especially compared to other competitors such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, Sophos, and SonicWall. Therefore, Check Point is pretty comfortable and easy to use.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) can be integrated with other firewalls, other network switches, and other network devices with the same solutions. There is nothing hard to implement; it is easy to integrate with other technologies.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is a good solution for organizational prospects helping to reduce risk. Customers are using multiple features such as malware detection, ransomware, zero-day attacks with ZTNA. All the features are available as blade technologies, while others have UTM features; Check Point has blade security solutions, and that is the main use case.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) comes under MPLS, SD-WAN, VLAN, and all those features. Moreover, all bundled solutions are available in Check Point, so I do not see that many additional features are needed.

Regarding the documentation I usually use, it is in a presentation type of document focused on customer presentation. I use different types of documents, and if anything is readily available for customer presentations, that is very helpful. Every detail I need is already in the documentation, and I can find it easily.

I give this solution a rating of 9 out of 10.

The main use case of using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is to secure all of our cloud infrastructures while they are browsing the internet and scanning everything.

We use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for HTTPS inspection as well as URL filtering and providing only a certain limited access for the VMs to certain websites.

The best features Check Point CloudGuard Network Security offers are its threat emulation and threat extraction blade as well as bring your own license where you can use the on-prem Check Point CloudGuard and decommission it to use in the cloud.

I believe Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has impacted our organization positively because it is one of the stable products that I have used till now, and we do not have to upgrade Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for any sort of CVE or bug in its OS and it is very stable.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has decreased the organizational risk because it provides compliance with HIPAA as well as PCI DSS by means of its compliance blade. It makes it easier for us to determine if we are compliant or not.

It made me more secure because when you talk about security, Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is on top of the list with 99.8 in blocking malware according to the Miercom list. I believe it has had a positive effect and we have not had any incidents.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security needs to focus more on the VPN side by being more flexible with configuring the VPN with route-based VPN and having a failover with it.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for about five to six months, and we are still in the evaluation phase.

We have not faced any incident to date when using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. We have faced zero downtime, and we have not been compromised.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is one of the stable products I have used.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very scalable. It depends upon your license, and if you purchase the right kind of license, then it is very scalable.

The customer support for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is on point. If you raise a case, they will reply within half an hour. I would rate the customer support for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security at a 10.

Positive

We did not use a different solution previously.

The setup was acceptable. We got a good deal.

We only need fewer employees because Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is easier to use in the cloud and we do not have to tweak every setting. However, we are yet to see a good return on investment.

We do not need as many employees because Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is easier to use in the cloud and we do not have to tweak every setting. However, we are yet to see a good return on investment.

We are a partner with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

We did not evaluate any other options.

Currently, we have not used Check Point CloudGuard Network Security alongside with any other Check Point products.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security does provide unified management access. Currently, we do not have any on-prem devices, but you can use the CloudGuard management system to onboard both cloud as well as on-prem gateways, where you can see the logs for both the devices. Currently, we have not used it on-prem, so we do not have this capability.

If you are looking at the value and security and you do not want to compromise, then Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is one of the best solutions you could have in your organization. I would give this review an overall rating of 9.

My main use case for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has been securing cloud network traffic, and I mainly rely on it to protect workloads in the cloud and enforce consistent security policies across cloud environments.

A quick example of how I use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to protect my cloud workloads is by inspecting inbound traffic to public-facing services; recently, it blocked suspicious scans and unauthorized access attempts before they could reach my cloud applications.

The best features Check Point CloudGuard Network Security offers include cloud-native threat prevention that inspects traffic in real time, consistent policy enforcement across multi-cloud environments, and automation and integration with cloud platforms for easier deployment.

The feature that made the biggest difference for me is the real-time threat prevention because it stops malicious traffic and risky behavior before it ever reaches my cloud workloads. This has significantly reduced actual incidents and false positives that I need to chase.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has positively impacted my organization by reducing successful attacks and risky cloud traffic, meaning fewer incidents reach production systems. It has also cut down the time my team spends troubleshooting threats, letting us focus more on proactive cloud security, which has freed up my time.

Since deploying Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, I have seen about a 40% drop in cloud network alerts, which has cut down noise and false positives, helping my team save roughly 25% of time previously spent on manual investigation and threat cleanup.

I think the initial setup of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security can be simpler; onboarding could be more intuitive for new cloud teams, and it could also have more flexible custom reporting and better documentation examples.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for about a year.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is stable.

The scalability of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has been very good; it handles growth in workloads and traffic smoothly, and the policies scale across accounts without performance issues.

I think the customer support for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has been responsive and helpful.

Positive

I previously relied mainly on AWS Native security controls, and I switched to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security because I needed stronger threat prevention, better visibility, and centralized policy management, as the AWS Native security controls were too limited for me, necessitating a solution with greater visibility.

I think the initial setup of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security can be simpler; onboarding could be more intuitive for new cloud teams, and it could also have more flexible custom reporting and better documentation examples.

I have seen a return on investment from Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, with a clear impact reflected in a 40% reduction in cloud network alerts and about 25% less time spent by my team on manual investigations and threat analysis. This means less operational overhead and more time for proactive cloud projects, translating to measurable cost savings and better efficiency overall.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security was a bit complex to map out at first; the setup cost was fair, especially through the AWS Marketplace, though planning the right license levels took some initial effort, so overall, it feels like good value for the level of cloud protection I get.

I evaluated other solutions, including Palo Alto, the AWS Native Controls, and Fortinet.

Compared to Palo Alto, AWS Native Controls, and Fortinet, Check Point CloudGuard Network Security was easier to integrate with my AWS environment and roll out consistent policies across accounts, so the day-to-day ops felt quicker. Compared to AWS Native, it is more feature-rich, and versus Palo Alto, it is similar in capability but slightly friendlier for multi-cloud automation.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security provides me with unified security management across my cloud and hybrid environments, and having a single console for policies and visibility simplifies operations, reduces errors, and makes it much easier to manage security consistently as I scale.

I utilize Check Point CloudGuard Network Security alongside other Check Point products like Check Point Quantum Force and Harmony Endpoints, which integrate through a shared management and threat intelligence layer, giving me consistent visibility and protection across cloud, network, and endpoints.

My advice to others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is to plan your cloud architecture and policies early and start with a phased rollout.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security an eight on a scale of one to ten because I think there is always room to be better.

I am no longer working with Barracuda products and have shifted to Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is used within my company.

The features I find most valuable include the reporting, detection rate of the firewall, and automatic blocking of content in inbound traffic.

I utilize only the Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) firewall and am not using any other Check Point products alongside it.

The features I find most valuable include the reporting, detection rate of the firewall, and automatic blocking of content in inbound traffic.

The benefits I have seen using it include reporting, the dashboard, and how it catches the logs. This is particularly valuable for a manager who has to deal with multiple things.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has impacted my organization positively so far.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) can be improved by bundling more products. As a consumer in the market, I would appreciate at least one or two extra features within the box.

Competitors in the market such as Palo Alto or Fortinet offer more features within their ecosystem. Palo Alto offers extra features within their offering, though it is expensive. If Check Point is not bidding competitively, people may let go of Check Point. The offerings and the price being paid sometimes make Check Point difficult to justify during the initial purchase.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is not very user-friendly. The UI is complex to understand initially, but once I became familiar with it, it became easier.

Exploring the full capabilities by just browsing the website is not possible. Visiting the website regularly is necessary if you are new to Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

I have been working with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for almost a year.

The initial setup was somewhat challenging. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) offers versatility and elasticity for expansion. In case of major workloads, I can vertically stack and grow by adding new hardware. The old and new hardware work in harmony together.

The technical support is quite good so far, particularly the local support.

Before finally choosing Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), I evaluated other options including Fortinet and Palo Alto.

I finally chose Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because of everything it offers. In my country, the pricing falls in the middle range. Palo Alto is the most expensive option, and Fortinet is the cheapest. I do not prefer Fortinet because I feel they are not very strong with detection. Palo Alto was too expensive for my budget.

The initial setup was somewhat challenging. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) offers versatility and elasticity for expansion. In case of major workloads, I can vertically stack and grow by adding new hardware. The old and new hardware work in harmony together.

It is very difficult to determine any return on investment with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) within a very short span of time. It has only been a year, so I may be able to assess this after another year or so.

Before finally choosing Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), I evaluated other options including Fortinet and Palo Alto.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has a nominal impact on my organization. Currently, the landscape is mainly relying on identity. Based on the identity side, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) does not have much responsibility within my premise or within my system architecture.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has impacted my confidence in secure cloud deployments and migrations. The product is not very user-friendly, and the UI is complex to understand initially, but once I became familiar with it, it became easier. Exploring the full capabilities by just browsing the website is not possible. Visiting the website regularly is necessary if you are new to Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).

I use Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) to protect my network assets on the firewall front, managing the inbound and outbound traffic for my cloud workload.

The biggest advantage of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for me is routing my traffic and whitelisting my outbound traffic to my vendors, partners, and clients. I am using it for both outbound and inbound traffic purposes. Whenever there was an inspection on the network front, I used network IPS. When whitelisting our applications on the inbound part, I whitelist the application control to my cloud users to connect those particular applications.

Integrating with other Check Point products is easy because Check Point offers a platform-based approach rather than a tool-based solution. Within one platform, I can integrate the tools so that I get the visibility.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has a significant impact on my confidence in secure cloud deployments and migrations. The experience is good. For providing internet access across my cloud platform, using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) means I can push the policy from a single console. Check Point has a gateway and a policy manager, so across unified policy, I can push it. An important feature with Check Point is object-level whitelisting. For example, I whitelist Office 365. I do not want to whitelist their IP. If I am whitelisting their object in the FQDN piece, there is no need to modify the IP. Sometimes Microsoft changes IPs, and we do not want to whitelist again and again. By whitelisting the object, life is simpler. We do not want to continuously whitelist the IPs.

Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) helps to reduce my organizational risk significantly. I would say that unified AI threat prevention is good. Compared to other solutions, it definitely reduces our threat prevention. I cannot specify a number because all products have different solutions, but I would say that the product detects the threat expectation at double nine.

The only negative aspect is that they have to improve the UI. The UI is very slow, and getting the graph details on the security performance metrics is lagging. That is the only thing I feel is not currently available in Check Point.

I would like to see improvements in the graphical aspect of the UI. They definitely have to enhance that.

I have been using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for six months since I started.

Since I have been using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for six months, I have not seen any glitches or downtime at all. The advantage with them is stability.

In terms of scalability, it is very easy to scale up or scale out based on my license and traffic pattern. If I do not size the proper traffic, then I have to buy the sizing. We have not come across any such situations.

Support is helpful and very responsive.

If I were to rate support from zero to ten points, I could give it eight point five or nine.

In terms of the installation procedure, the initial setup was complicated, but after that, the implementation is fine.

I am able to observe ROI with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), and I see some savings in terms of time or money.

If I were to quantify the ROI, I would say it is around fifteen to twenty percent.

In terms of price and license, I would say Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is not expensive. The pricing is moderate.

Check Point stands out, and I can confidently say it stands out.

My biggest challenge while deploying Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is arriving at the right architecture in the right place. I give this review an overall rating of nine.