Check Point NGFW Reviews

We're an international research laboratory, focused on thermonuclear energy experiments. Due to strong remote collaboration, and to control network communication, we choose the Check Point NG Firewall solution.

Most of the personnel are researchers. We also have a strong collaboration with a University and take care of a European Ph.D. on thermonuclear fusion, as the future clean energy.

We aim to constantly improve firewall technology, which is a key strategy nowadays. We've chosen Check Point in 2007 and step-by-step upgrade and expand cyber security deployment using their solution. 

We appreciate the support and escalation when issues are in place. We really appreciate the solidity of the solution, the redundancy, we own a couple of appliances in failover. 

We use Check Point to grant VPN access both for clients and also in specific site-to-site IPSec remote connections.

I like the dashboard, redundancy, log analysis, threat prevention and ISP, and VPN.

The dashboard has clean and focused menus and tabs, that offer immediate access to important information and configuration. 

Log analysis is really powerful considering the enormous amount of logged data. 

We use a specific function to control bandwidth occupation based on protocols and IP subnetworks.

Fundamental is the interoperability with RSA SecurID, Windows AD/Azure.

We're in the process of moving to the MS O365 cloud, and Check Point helps us with this.

Maybe the VPN clients could be improved, however, only from a cosmetic point of view. They use a very old GUI and should help remote assistance in case of problems to make it more accessible in terms of getting log/debug information. On this, I suggest an approach like ZOOM US, where is clearly defined the application life cycle, and users warned over time.

We're in the process of moving to a cloud hybrid solution based on MS Azure, and on that field, quite common nowadays, it seems that more has to be done, moving from on-premise historical deployment. 

IoT should be considered in future development.

I've used the solution since 2007.

It is an absolutely stable solution. It is easy to put maintenance on an appliance without losing any connectivity.

The last release, R81, is impressive, at least in these first months, having recently upgraded from R80.

My experience is good, both on technical issues, and commercial support during renewal.

Positive

We previously used a Cisco PIX firewall.

The setup is somewhat complex, however, technical documents are clear, and the most common solutions are well described.

We implemented it with a third party and in-house. The support company that helped in Italy is fantastic.

We may need more time to measure ROI.

Check Point is not a cheap solution, however, on cyber security, we prefer to stay with a key player.

We constantly verify other vendor solutions, such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos.

The device is being used for perimeter security devices across multiple clients across sites. Check Point has not only improved our organization - it also has given us holistic perimeter and endpoint security protection throughout the enterprise.  

Our sites across the globe have Check Point perimeter protection.

Pros include:

• Internal Network Protection from outside network
• VPN connectivity for secure data transmission across multiple vendors
• File download antivirus security
• URL Filtering
• Application filtering
• Malicious domains blocking

The solution has helped out organization stay safe with its depth application filter, URL filtering, and SSL inspection. It's mitigated a significant amount of risk for corporate users as well as to host services at our terminal that need access from the internet. By far, it's the best security solution one can adopt for their organization. 

It's:

• Reduced attacks on DMZ servers
• Blocked access of malicious destinations hit by internal users
• Complete visibility about what is going and what is coming via internet
• Check Point is the industry’s unified cybersecurity architecture that protects businesses against sophisticated 5th generation cyber-attacks.
• Having multiple checkpoint products under the same roof provides consolidated security.
• Ultimately saving cost by having better centralized solution

The solution has a lot of valuable aspects, including:

• IPS & IDS
• Sandbox (Threat Emulation & Extraction)
• Ease of management
• Reports for analysis
• Better technical support
• Stateful inspection
• Application-aware boxes
• Threat detection capabilities
• Hyperscaling

Data loss prevention, compliance, threat emulation, and other blades overall make this a robustly unified platform for the implementation and management of security controls.

Since it is Layer 7, we are able to get down to the application level and block certain applications from even running.

Since it has an IPS in place, we are able to see possible attacks that have been prevented by the firewall.

The perimeter antivirus can be improved. It's not as good as other leaders.

Additional features that could be good to have/improved include:

• Modular capabilities 
• Integration with VMware and NSX products per client requirement
• 3rd Party support product is very limited 

The solution can integrate with other vendors to form IPsec connectivity with redundancy - which is only possible now between the CP to CP FW only.

The licensing part is a bit tricky. The product can simplify this further for ease of use.

They need to work on log size optimization.

Antivirus signatures should be updated in real-time.

We've used the solution for the last eight years.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support has been great.

Positive

We did not use a different solution previously.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We had a vendor assist us.

We haven't used other products.

We also looked at FortiGate and Palo Alto.

The reason we have the Check Point Next Generation Firewall is that it's our main perimeter firewall in all our branches around the world. It secures the IT infrastructure in all of our environments and our subsidiaries. We also use it to set up tunnels between all our sites.

We have multiple versions from the legacy R77 to the latest R80.40.

In today's world, there are a lot of risks related to infrastructure security, malware and more. The Check Point has multiple blades in the same product, which improve security in IPS, application control, and URL filtering. You don't need to buy multiple, separate products to achieve the best security.

The basic most valuable feature is the firewall itself.

The management platform, dashboard, graphical user interface, are one of the best, if not the best, in the business. It's the most intuitive and it's really user-friendly in day-to-day operations.

The VPN means you can communicate in an encrypted manner between sites. 

The application control and URL filtering are also very beneficial. They enable you to tighten security and decide which applications or websites you want to grant access to. In our company, we don't allow anyone to freely access the internet to surf all websites. Some sites may be sensitive and some of them may be inappropriate. It allows us to control the traffic.

Their management features are the best, from one point of view, but they are too heavy. For example, if you are looking at a configuration file, you can't just browse through it and see all the configurations like you can with other vendors, like Cisco and Fortigate. With those solutions you can just go over the configuration file and read all the objects and the policies, etc. 

Because of the Check Point architecture, the data file itself is huge if you're comparing it to the data files of other vendors. The difference is something like 3 Mb to 1 Gb. It's not so straightforward. 

The data process is also not so simple. You don't just load a text file which has all the configuration. It's a more complex process to restore it from a backup, when it comes to Check Point.

I have been using Check Point's NGFW for approximately 10 years.

One of my issues with Check Point is the stability. There have been too many bugs, over the years, when I compare them with other vendors. Their QA team should do better work before releasing their GA versions.

If you're looking for scalability and you need to add more power and performance and to scale up, they have a new solution, but I haven't used it yet.

In terms of the extent of our use, it's our main firewall. Everything flows through it.

We currently have four direct users and all of them are security engineers. I'm doing most of the deployment and the others are responsible for the day-to-day operations. In the overall company there are more than 10,000 users, and the traffic throughput is around 10 Gb.

They have a very extensive Knowledge Base on their website, which is very helpful. But if you contact their technical support, not all of them have all the skills. If you open a ticket it may take a while to be resolved. It can take more than a month until they finally escalate it several times internally and then, finally, find a solution. But the first tier is not too technical.

The previous solution, Contivity, was before my time in this company and I don't think it even exists anymore. The Contivity was only a firewall and our company wanted more features and benefits. It didn't have next-generation firewall options, like URL filtering, user identity, and IPS. As risks evolved in the data security field, our company needed to adapt.

The complexity of the setup depends on which branch we're setting it up for. If it's a new branch, we can spin up a new firewall in less than an hour or so, do all the configuration, and it's ready for production. But if we're replacing an existing solution, the migration process may take some time and the people involved need more extensive knowledge, compared to spinning up a new firewall.

If it's a complex environment and you're migrating from one solution to another one, or even from an older version to a new version within the Check Point platform, I would recommend not to do it by yourself. In those cases you should use a third-party partner or Check Point Professional Services.

I did most of my deployments by myself, but in our headquarters, where there was an older version of a Check Point version, and they wanted to migrate to a new one, I used a partner. The partner I used was SafeWay, a company in Israel. They have quite extensive knowledge and they are very professional.

It's hard to measure ROI in financial terms, but our productivity has gone up with the new version of the R80 because we don't need to wait for one administrator to log out of the management system for another to be able to log in. Multiple administrators can now work simultaneously on the platform. That productivity increase can be seen as a form of ROI.

Use the basic sizing tool to do the correct sizing so you don't waste too much money, because it's not a very cheap solution when compared to other vendors. There are other vendors that are more affordable.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees, except maintenance.

We have not evaluated any other options.

My best advice would be, if you are not as skilled, that while you don't really need to use the Check Point Professional Services, you should use a partner that has good knowledge of the device. If it's just a straightforward deployment without all the features, it may look simple but there are too many options. Eventually, you may use 30 percent of them. I don't think you will use 100 percent of all the features that are available.

Overall, I'm a little bit disappointed because of the numerous bugs that there are.

I would rate it at seven out of ten because their management platform and the dashboard. It's the most intuitive and user-friendly in day-to-day operations, as long as you're not dealing with the bugs.

Generally speaking, it's like any other NGFW. It's quite a versatile solution for many aspects. It's not like a separate solution for firewalling, but a separate solution for web access. It's just very convenient to have everything in one box. On the other hand, when you need something, like a very top-rank solution for very specific things, like network intrusion prevention or network intrusion detection as a component of NGFW, I would say it looks weaker compared to the well-designed solution for its purpose. It has the same issue as many other versatile or unified solutions, so it's really convenient.

From our point of view, including me and my colleagues, I would say it's really good that they have a lot of integrations with third-party companies. Integrations with third-party companies are really convenient. API offers many convenient ways to integrate with open-source solutions. It's very, very good when you have everything in one package and one bundle.

If you check each and every point from this part, you will find some flow in an area, or you will discover another flow in another area. It's unfortunate, and not a usual situation and it is not just for NGFW but for any other tool, making it a disadvantage where improvements are required.

For the next release, I would prefer the tool to be more flexible in terms of general deployments because some additional companies must be deployed as a basic one. For those who have been working with their solutions for a relatively short amount of time, it would be better for the tool to offer an adequate knowledge base, not just very superficial information, or maybe not too much in that spot, something like average stuff. The tool should be more flexible in terms of deployment, and a more adequate knowledge base should be available.

About the UI, it is hard to comment because it has been more or less the same for many years. Professionals have already been using the tool's interface for many years. From a contemporary angle, the tool's interface looks a bit outdated from a UI point of view. The UI has been more or less static in terms of changes for the last couple of years. People can get to the UI and work with it in a couple of months, but compared to any other solutions on the market, which are more flexible and more rapidly evolving, I would say that UI should be considered for improvement.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for two to two and a half years. My company is a partner and reseller of the solution.

For stability in high-load networks, I rate the solution a six to seven out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the tool an eight to nine out of ten.

There could be some performance issues under the heavy deployments and heavy load, but generally, if you are talking about the general scalability, it is quite good.

The tool is suitable for large and very large enterprise businesses. From our company's practice, I would say it is meant for banks and financial institutions. It is also quite popular in heavy industries. I would say it has a more or less wide list. It is more or less very popular in banking.

The tool can be scaled up, but even despite high scalability, it requires a lot of extra companies to bear a high-load environment and high-load networks, making it a bit unfair, especially when comparing some of the numbers with the real-world statistics it likes too far from reality.

The solution's technical support is fine. I rate the technical support a nine to ten out of ten.

Positive

If ten means easy, I rate the product's initial setup phase a six to seven out of ten. It is not a plug-and-play solution. It requires much more skill and effort for the specialist to set it up properly. Even if there are any PoCs, you can easily discover the difference between the easy setup process and the more difficult setup phases, and I would say that Check Point falls under the latter category as it takes much more time and effort. Sometimes, it could be buggy, and you just need to fix some other firmware or software update.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model for large and very large enterprises.

The time to deploy the solution depends on the stage because you can talk about the initial deployment or you can talk about the deployment, including the integrations. I would say that the integrations would be really time-consuming. For the initial deployment, I would say it is a couple of days if it is not really a large installation and a couple of weeks are needed for the initial deployment.

ROI is like an artificial point in connection to a solution like Check Point NGFW, and its numbers are quite questionable.

Suppose the company has too many different solutions from different vendors. In that case, it becomes a greater burden in terms of support and everything, especially in terms of management of these solutions. I would say that Check Point would be a good choice if they are planning to migrate. If it is something like a choice between one NGFW from a vendor and you want to move into the Check Point NGFW, it becomes a bit more tricky. It becomes really hard to say about the ROI because it is just like a different approach. If you are moving between a lot of different solutions from different companies, then ROI will be really good and attractive.

The tool's price is reasonable in case you are not using it in a high-load environment. If you are not expecting significant increases or peak increases in loading, it should be fine. If it is a really highly loaded VLE environment, and if you try to rely on the tool's official numbers, I would say you can put your environment and network in jeopardy because it becomes really unstable. For the last couple of years, the situation has changed, and it has become really tricky to understand why the tool's official numbers aren't aligned with real-world numbers, which is a big problem for the VLE customers because when they are just trying to consider their official stats and official scalability numbers, it might be tricky. VLE customers should have, like, a 20 to 30 percent extra, or else, at this point, it becomes much more expensive.

The tool's prices don't make any sense because we are not talking about MSRP prices for VLE. We are talking about the discounted prices, which could be a really, really huge gap between the MSRP and the discounted price. I don't think these numbers will highlight any beneficial aspect of the price for you.

There needs to be accuracy in terms of scalability. It should be well-designed, and if the customer does not have enough resources or their own resources, it is better to involve an adequate number of SIs. The system integrator will do the trick, and if a person is experienced, then everything can be really good in terms of the certifications, the statistics, and everything else. The system integrator should do everything properly, but it will be quite expensive, especially if we are talking about large and very large enterprises. For mid-sized businesses, it should be fine because it is less tricky, and even the normal specialized person on the customer side should be fine with using it, as it can be quite easy. In any case, scalability is a bottleneck here.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Primarily, it's used for customers who want to add their network security.

The IPS protection is the most useful feature that I found from Check Point. It has a feature called WatchTower, which helps you manage the device using a mobile. That's the most used feature. 

Other than that, it's quite simple. All the other features are what you find in all other firewalls. So the best feature that I find from Check Point is WatchTower.

The setup is a little complex compared to its competitors. That's what makes it stand out. Other than that, it could always be done by another product, but they have a lot of IoT products. This is definitely something like a Check Point Quantum device.

I have been using it for two years. The version I use is R8x series. I'm not exactly sure, but it's the latest version.

It is a stable product. 

It is a very scalable solution. 

The customer service and support have been good.

Positive

I used Sophos XG. We (my company) still use Sophos, Check Point, and FortiGate. We use all three firewalls in our environment.

Check Point has a really good feature where they give us a subscription for IoT device protection, which other vendors don't have. Sophos, I don't think they have it. 

Fortinet charges for it separately, so that's an additional cost, but with Check Point, the feature is built in. It's not an additional license.

Moreover, Check Point has started promoting a lot. It's well known here in our region.

The initial setup is complex. It's pretty easy to maintain.

We deployed it for customers. So maybe if we do a big deployment, it could be difficult.

The pricing is reasonable compared to the features that you get.

I highly recommend it to users who have a lot of IoT devices.

It all comes down to one simple thing:

"If you have IoT devices, I highly recommend Check Point NGFW. If you don't, it's a bit complex compared to Fortinet and Sophos."

But once you get the hang of it, you can quite easily configure the device.

Moreover, Check Point has a certification program if you want, and you can learn with that. They also have a separate certification program that you can take, a paid certification program.

I am satisfied with the documentation by Check Point. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The solution is our main firewall. It protects our perimeter.

The tool has solid firmware with very few vulnerabilities. We don't need to upgrade it for vulnerabilities. It is rare when compared to the competitors. The product’s performance is good. My organization chose the product because it is stable and provides a very good Software Blade.

The tool must improve its support. The support provided by partners gets expensive.

I have been using the solution for around six years.

The product is stable.

The solution protects the entire perimeter. Every user passes through the firewall. It is used daily. We have around eight administrators. The solution requires very little maintenance.

The initial setup was easy.

The solution is expensive. A medium data center would cost around $17,000 per year for a medium enterprise.

Except for Palo Alto, Check Point is good compared to its competitors. Cisco ASA lacks features.

It is a good product. There are other competitors. Check Point NGFW is easy to deploy, manage, implement, and troubleshoot. The operation is pretty simple. Even a few operations people can run it very well. It is pretty much stable. We need to safeguard the data of our organization very well. Check Point NGFW is a leading solution provider. Security products must not have many vulnerabilities. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Our branch offices and customer sites require Internet access for the on-site staff and remote access capabilities for after-hours and remote support.

The Check Point firewalls allow us to provide site-to-site VPN, client VPN, web/app filtering, and IPS functionalities.

Client VPN is leveraged by site staff due to the majority of our sites requiring 24-hour support and also allows centralized teams to remotely assist with multiple sites globally.

We also use these at locations to provide security when our stand-alone network requires connectivity to the customer's network.

Check Point's solution is both affordable and easy to manage for the small business applications that we utilize them for. Due to the great pricing and support, we can afford to deploy the firewalls in a high-availability solution providing greater uptime and less worry. 

The price point of their equipment also means that we can often purchase a more robust solution compared to some competitors and Check Point's inclusion of more advanced features, such as IPS, by default, is a great selling point.

We greatly appreciate the ease of configuring firewall policy ACL rules and how the seamless integration with VPN users and user groups provides the ability to granularly restrict access. The uncomplicated configuration ensures that mistakes are avoided and rules are easily audited.

Having the ability to set an expiration date for remote access VPN users simplifies the process and increases security by ensuring that stale accounts and not forgotten.

In general, we find that CheckPoint offers a great balance between ease of use and configurability.

The one thing I have been continually asking for is a more robust certification process including self-paced study material similar to Cisco's Security certification track. Not everyone can afford the time and money to attend the official in-person classes offered by Check Point. Even if someone was not interested in fully pursuing a certification, offering certification guides is often a method that IT professionals follow in order to learn about a specific topic and keep for reference.

An area that I sometimes find lacking is the information provided by the system when performing troubleshooting issues such as site-to-site VPN tunnels. The logs provide general information regarding what is happening but often, it leaves you wanting additional details. This also ties back into the lack of training and knowledge required to utilize the more advanced features of the command line.

We have been using Check Point NGFW for more than five years.

We have never had a device or software failure in the more than five years that we have been using Check Point devices. To date, we are extremely happy with the performance.

The few times that we required customer service, they have been extremely helpful and knowledgeable. I would rate them on par with the other top-tier companies.

We previously utilized Cisco firewalls but the cost structure of the hardware, licensing, and support became prohibitive. Check Point offered a more robust solution at an affordable price point.

The initial setup was extremely quick and easy, and the deployment time for a new site is often under a day.  

The price point and licensing was the main factor in moving away from Cisco and migrating all of our sites to Check Point. They offered more features for a lower cost than competitors, and the licensing model was easy to understand.

We evaluated NGFWs from Cisco, Palo Alto, and Fortinet in addition to the Check Point.

I work as an internal network team member. We protect the company environment from outside threats, outside viruses, and ransomware attacks. It is kind of an IT administrator job.

They are protecting internal security as well as giving us security from the outside world or public environment. 

It protects the environment. It gives advanced features to our company, like Antivirus, more granular security policies, and more control over the traffic, e.g., what we want to allow or deny to our environment. 

What I like about this firewall is it has a central management system. We can configure or monitor a number of firewalls at a time from the central management system. 

They have a logging system where we can have our logs visible. The logs are easy to view and understand. 

While the logs are very good and easy to understand, when you want to download these customized logs, they don't have as many features compared to competitive firewalls. 

Check Point has a very good Antivirus feature. However, compared to the competition in the market, it is lacking somewhere. In my last organization, I worked with Palo Alto Networks as well. I found that while they both have an antivirus feature, the Palo Alto antivirus feature is much better. Check Point should improve this feature. It is a good feature, but compared to Palo Alto, it lacks.

I have been using it for the last three years, since 2017.

Check Point is already a very big name in the market. Our software updates, even the Antivirus updates, are very stable in the market. There are no problems with its stability.

Performing maintenance for a solution takes around 12 people. Maintenance is something that our team is capable of. Internally, we have had many training sessions on Check Point Firewall. Our seniors have managed that for us so we are capable of doing it. Most of our BAU is done by us.

Scalability is very easy. I haven't found anything that is the issue with the scalability of this firewall. If you have complete knowledge of it, the scalability is not tough.

I used their assistance many times. The experience with them is sometimes very good. They give the best solution in a short amount of time. Two out of 10 times, I feel that they are only looking to close their tickets. They are keen to do that. My personal experience with the support is an eight out of 10.

We currently use Check Point and Cisco ASA. The purpose for the company is to increase the security. They were only using Cisco ASA Firewall, which is kind of a degrading firewall right now because it lacks many features, which are advanced in Check Point Firewall. With Cisco ASA, we need to purchase additional IPS hardware. But, for Check Point, we do not require that. Also, if we want the same configuration for multiple firewalls at a time, then Cisco ASA does not support that. We have to create the same policy in each firewall.

We have our own on-premises firewalls, not cloud-based. The production time took around nine to 12 months' time. The setup was completed during this time.

We follow the three-tier architecture for this firewall, which is also recommended by Check Point. We have the central management device as well as the web console and firewall.

For the deployment process, there were only four senior network engineers involved from our company.

It is easy to control from the central management system. For example, if we have 10 firewalls, and we want to push that same configuration among them, we can use this solution's central management system to do that simultaneously. So, there is time saving in that way. The time savings does depend on the situation. For example, if I am running half an hour of work on each firewall, that will take around 300 minutes. However, if I do this work from the central management system, then it will only take 30 minutes to push the same configuration to those same 10 devices.

They sell it in one box. In that one box, they sell Antivirus and Threat Prevention. They have everything, so we are not required to purchase additional IPS hardware for it.

The cost of the pricing and licensing are okay. They are giving me a good product as far as I know. It is more expensive than Cisco, but cheaper than Palo Alto, which is fine. It has many good features, so it deserves a good price as well.

I have experience with Palo Alto Networks Firewalls and Cisco ASA Firewall. Compared to these solutions, Check Point has a very good, understandable log viewer. It is easy to view and understand the logs, which helps a lot while doing troubleshooting or making new security policies for the organization. Also, it is very easy to create new security policy rules.

The Check Point Antivirus feature lacks in comparison to Palo Alto Networks. Also, compared to other competitive solutions, the training for Check Point available right now is very expensive as well as the certification is little expensive.

Get properly trained. When I entered this organization, I struggled with this firewall. There are very few good quality training programs available in the market. Or, if it is available, then it is very expensive. So, I advise new people to get properly trained because it has many feature sets, and if they do not use them with the proper knowledge, then it could worsen their situation.

I am happy with the organization's progress, as they work hard on their product. It is a good lesson from a personal level: We should work hard and improve ourselves. 

I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.