Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We primarily use the solution as firewall security for our clients.

The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features.

Reporting needs improvement. It's difficult to utilize properly. Currently, I'm in a situation whereby a client of ours is looking for reporting on their organizational unit. Check Point has failed to do that. We've been trying to do it for the past month and we haven't been able to. We've also gotten techs from Check Point to call us to help and we just can't get the solution to do what we need it to do.

Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself. 

The stability of the solution is fantastic.

The scalability potential of the solution is great. We use the solution quite extensively. We do plan to increase usage in the future.

If I were rating technical support out of ten, I would give it a seven. They're inconsistent. Sometimes you do get guys from Check Point to help you out and then sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's hard getting a hold of them.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the organization.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

I am familiar with Fortinet, although I didn't do a direct comparison. I did compare other solutions as well.

For those who want to implement the solution, they should make sure they have a very strong networking background.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for security.

The IPs and the VPN are the most valuable features of this solution.

I would like to see an improvement on the zero-day threat detection. It is also not very user-friendly, so it would be great if it could be less complicated and easier to operate. The dashboard needs to be easier to use.

Also, if the solution could be cheaper, it would really help, because it is very expensive. 

I would like to see sand boxing added to the new version.

The program is very stable.

The technical support is excellent and they always responded when we had an issue.

The initial setup wasn't too complicated, but it wasn't very easy and straightforward. Deployment took us about a week. 

It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees. So I would like to see it being more affordable in the future.

I will recommend this program to others and my rating is seven out of ten. I do recommend that users should always use the checkpoints and backup as often as they can.

We are a solution reseller, and we also assist our clients with support. This is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers.

This solution can be deployed in many ways. It is available in the cloud on AWS and Azure. You can install it in a virtual machine, you can have it as a hybrid, and you can have it on-premises.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can start off with a simple firewall and expand it to UTM. You don't have to buy a UTM to start off with, but rather, you can buy a simple firewall and upgrade it. The simple firewall comes with many of the UTM features, in any case.

The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use.

I would like to see support for software-defined wirings in the next release of this solution.

I've got Check Point systems that have not been rebooted in two years, so it is quite stable.

This solution is quite scalable, but it requires hardware upgrades from time to time. Or, if you go with a virtual environment then it is very scalable because you start with one CPU and can increase to twenty-four CPUs.

Technical support for this solution is fairly good. We have got enough skill in our business to do most of it, but once you raise a call with support, they give you quite the fast and effective answer.

The initial setup of this solution is in-between, but more on the complex side. It's not the most complex product that I've worked with, but definitely not the simplest product that I've worked with.

The price of this solution varies from small to extremely expensive. On average, it is normally on the lower end, being less expensive than Palo Alto or Cisco.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from this solution is to never assume that something is simple, because there's always a hidden snag that we run into.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution is very important for our network. We use it for the data on our servers and for our internet connections. We also use it for all of our user devices to connect to outside corporations. The IPS on our devices prevents any issues from occurring. We use the on-prem version of this solution.

We currently upgraded our devices to a new version. We have noticed a performance increase. We tested filtering features and it's an interesting feature that helps us with our tasks. We don't need very complex features.

It's a high-performance device. The network performance is also really good. We check how much time it takes for the servers. Our network performance has increased since using this solution. 

We have a local consultant for this solution. They can handle most of the operations with my team. We work together with the consultant sometimes for complicated scenarios like migration.

The initial setup is difficult. It took me three tries to get it right. The setup took two or three hours. We migrated from an old to a new one. It's not so complex but Check Point is complex in comparison to other firewalls. For example, Palo Alto is easier to install than Check Point. 

We negotiate every deal to get a discount for a higher number of devices. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten and I would recommend this solution. Their support team should be faster because sometimes when we need support their responses are late. 

Our primary use case of this solution is cloud protection for MC65 Operating System, AWS, and Microsoft.

Right now, we have a hybrid infrastructure. We needed security on the cloud, and this solution has provided the security that we were lacking.

• Traps prevention
• Security on the cloud

The product can still grow.

It is fast. It provides what we need at the moment, and it's still growing.

It is scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it's easy to implement and manage.

Technical support is fair. I have had some good support technicians when I call in. 

We were not on the cloud before. We're a big Check Point customer. Our secure perimeter is checkpoint, so we needed security for the cloud. So, it was a pretty easy decision right there. We evaluated other vendors, but it was easy decision.

The initial setup was straightforward, not complex.

We did our own deployment. We used a reseller for buying the product, but not for the implementation.

We also looked at Cisco's cloud products since we have a lot of Cisco products.

Look into it. I like how straightforward it is and simple it is to implement in the cloud. 

Our primary use case is for major cloud vendors: AWS and Azure. 

Moving into the cloud without having to change a lot of our internal processes and retrain staff is one of the biggest benefits of this solution. 

It is what we use mainly for on-premise. That is really what has us using the product, as it is sort of our standard for data centers.

I would like to see more focus on east-west traffic inspection and AWS.

Things are changing very quickly in the cloud. There is a lot more maturing that needs to happen as far as CloudGuard goes, specifically more around some cloud native type situations where everything is being shoehorned through one or multiple VMs is not optimal.

We definitely have to watch new versions and deploy them in a smart way, but that is the way with any type of software.

The scalability depends on the situation. Some situations are not very scalable. High scalability, in AWS, without matting is just not there. It's more of an AWS problem than it is a Check Point problem.

We are receiving our technical support through a partner. Therefore, we do not really engage directly with Check Point that much. We use the partner for technical support matters, who is great.

We did not use anything previously. Going to the cloud was a new requirement for us.

The initial setup was just as straightforward as setting up a physical Check Point box would have been.

We implemented in-house by deploying it ourselves.

We don't really track the ROI on this.

We also considered Fortinet. Check Point has better overall integration with Azure.

I was part of the decision-making process.

I would rate it a six out of ten. 

Other vendors typically are working with hardware acceleration and various other products, which you can't get in the cloud. One of the key things that made us more comfortable with Check Point is this is only thing that they do. It's the same exact thing as they are doing on-premise for the most part.

We use this solution to secure networks. We block unwanted malware. 

We have a development team who asked us to open reports. We asked that they initiate traffic to see what is blocking them. We then give them reports and after that, they ask to open the report for the traffic application and we work accordingly.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring. We can easily monitor what kind of stuff comes over to our network and we can then check the dashboard and work accordingly.

I would like for them to develop guides. If you compare it with Cisco, you can just type out any problem you're having regarding Cisco and you will easily get a solution. With Check Point, it's not easy to get a solution.

We maxed out scalability. 

The initial setup was a bit complex. Is take two or three months to implement and we have to continuously work on it. We needed two to three engineers for deployment. 

We researched the top firewall solutions and settled on Check Point and Palo Alto. Comparatively, both are good. 

Ultimately Palo Alto is a very advanced firewall. This firewall can easily identify what application is running behind the network.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We consolidated from three management consoles and three clusters to only one, which is a big improvement. 

In general, Check Point VSX is a good solution. Its blades and VSLS (Virtual System Load Sharing) work fine.

Having a web UI in the VSX (or something similar) would be nice. However, you can do everything in the CLI.

We are replacing three old cluster ASA firewalls and concentrating it into an all-in-one VSX cluster. This allows our central management have more time for other tasks.