Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

I use CheckPoint in our data center to control the internet and to enable threat prevention. I then integrate it into my center and to my events.

I like the SmartEvent feature. When we see a threat, SmartEvent can create a rule for that. SmartEvent works with the SmartCenter to block a threat attack with a block monitor. The SmartCenter has the management for all the firewalls and data centers in a single dashboard.

It could be more stable and scalable. Check Point price and support could be better.

I have ten years of experience using Check Point NGFW.

Check Point NGFW could be more stable. I think the problem is that the kernel sometimes won't play ball and isn't stable. Sometimes, they have a block, and we have to spend a lot of time fixing it. In contrast, I think Palo Alto and Fortinet are more stable.

Check Point NGFW could be more scalable. I think Palo Alto has more plugins and features, and Check Point needs more features. However, Check Point integration is very complex.

Check Point support could be better. I think Palo Alto has a very clear pricing model. When we have an issue, we create a ticket and receive fast service from Palo Alto. It's good.

The initial setup, in my experience, isn't simple as Fortinet and Palo Alto. It would be better if the person doing it has experience. 

I implemented this solution by myself.

The price could be better. I think Palo Alto pricing is high, and Check Point isn't much better. FortiGate is cheaper. I think when I implemented this solution, I recommended buying a yearly subscription.

When I choose a solution for a customer, I must verify the features, current specifications and make recommendations. When we use an all-in-one firewall solution, we usually recommend using a Palo Alto external firewall. This is because Fortinet has an SD-WAN solution and firewalls, and Palo Alto is the same. But I don't think Check Point has one. When a customer doesn't want to implement many solutions, we recommend using Fortinet or Palo Alto.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Check Point NGFW an eight.

While the solution is good, we wish to have something that is a bit better, as the threats have evolved over time. We have been using Check Point for more than than eight years and are interested in a better solution. We entered a review site which ranks top security firewalls and saw that Palo Alto is ranked number one, followed by Fortinet, with Check Point in the lead. We noticed that Palo Alto was much more expensive than Fortinet, but wished to know which key features differentiated the two. 

Though we did not take issue with the price of Check Point NGFW, we felt that it was providing us with inadequate support here in Uganda. This is why we decided to switch solutions. I should note that I do not have a technical background and am responsible for procurement. 

The value we were getting for our money was an issue. I work for a bank for which security is very important, but we were not being assured of the appropriate support. The licensing fees we were paying did not equate with adequate local support. We had already had a bad experience with Check Point, so we did not bother with a quote from it and, instead, got one from several local companies that can support either Palo Alto or Fortinet. 

We do not feel that the local support given in Uganda is equitable with the pricing. 

While the pricing is okay, the local Ugandan support one gets is not commensurate with it. 

I rate Check Point NGFW as a six out of ten. 

The user interface is very good.

The level of security is excellent. It protects our organization well.

It's a good overall product and we have a high level of satisfaction with the features on offer. 

Technical support could be improved. It's hit or miss in terms of the level of service and getting the answers you need.

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

We have hundreds of users that use the solution currently within our company.

We aren't 100% satisfied with technical support. Sometimes you get the help you need and sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's absolutely amazing. Sometimes they're great. However, you can't rely on them being like that all the time. We'd like the service level to be more reliable.

I can't speak to the installation process, as it was handled by an outside firm.

We had an integrator that assisted us with the implementation. 

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations especially if the company is looking for a certain level of security.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We implement Check Point in the front end to protect internet platforms and security platforms. 

Check Point provides very good performance with many solution options and many kinds of modules.

I'd like to see more integration with other solutions. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

This solution is stable and scalable.

We've rarely used support but they've been helpful when we needed them. 

We migrated from Cisco to Check Point. Check Point is easier for the administration console.

Before migrating to Check Point, we tested it in several environments. We used a consultant for deployment and we now have 800 users in the company and six engineers responsible for maintenance. 

We pay an annual license fee. 

I recommend this solution and rate it a 10 out of 10. 

It's our main firewall and the first line of protection from outside attacks. We use it to interconnect our remote locations (that use different vendors and equipment) and let the employees work remotely. We're a small site with 300 users and this equipment is more than enough for us. We use almost all the blades and the equipment has run smoothly for years. This NGFW monitors all the traffic outside of the main network, prevents malicious activities, and lets us easily manage network policies to shape our connections.

We have a lot of flexibility now, and a leg up identifying zero-day threats. We have multiple ways of doing policies now that we didn't have before. The options are more robust than previous products and I would say that we're pleased with the product. The reports I'm getting are that we're satisfied, even impressed, with the options Check Point offers.

There is a scope of improvement in detecting zero-day threats using the SandBlast technology, by introducing emulation of Linux-based operating systems. We have also observed issues while using the products with SSL decryption. There is room for improvement in application-based filtering, as with other firewalls available in the market today. Check Point has improved its application filtering capabilities in the recent past and their latest version, R80, is more capable but still, creating an application-based filter policy is a little cumbersome.

It's a NGFW with all of the capabilities required to protect for next-generation attacks at the perimeter level. The module or Security features that are provided as part of the base license with Check Point include (VPN, IPS, Application Control, and Content Awareness) which itself is strong enough to protect the organization.

The packet inspections have been a strong point. Our identity collectors have also been helpful. In many ways, Check Point has been a step up from the SonicWall that we had in-house before that. There's a lot of additional flexibility that we didn't have before.

I would like there to be a way to run packets that capture more easily in the GUI environment. Right now, if we want to read packet captures, we have to do so from the command line.

The biggest improvement they could make is having one software to install on all three levels of their products, so that the SMBs, the normal models, and the chassis would all run the same software. Now, while there is central management, everything that has to be configured on the gateway itself works differently on the three kinds of devices.

I started using the solution 3 months ago.

The web interface was easy for me. The configuration is logical, so it's easy to use and easy to understand how to protect, how to open a port, how to manage, and how to route a device. That's why I prefer Check Point. It's robust and I never have issues with the hardware.

The scalability is quite good. You can scale well across locations for not too much cost. If a company needs to expand, it can do so relatively easily.

Also, cost-wise, it's very affordable to scale up. It's not expensive to add hardware and licenses as needed. They make upgrading very cheap.

We have 200 people on the solution. That said, they are using it with an IPsec tunnel. They don't use all of the capabilities of the hardware. They are using it just to encrypt tunneling between the sites.

Technical support has been excellent

Yes, we were previously using SonicWall but security is less robust in comparison to Check Point.

The initial setup is very easy.

We implemented it through a vendor called S G Informatics India Pvt Ltd.

The level of expertise I would rate at 10 out of 10.

I would recommend going into Check Point solutions. Although Check Point has the option of implementing your firewall on a server, I would advise implementing it on a perimeter device because servers have latency. It's best to deploy it on a dedicated device. Carry out a survey to find out if the device can handle the kind of workload you need to put through it. Also, make it a redundant solution, apart from the Management Server, which can be just one device. Although I should note that, up until now, we have not had anything like that ourselves.

We have looked into Sophos.

The most valuable features are the security blades and the ease of managing the policies, searching logs for events, and correlating them.

Primarily, we implement the solution at a couple of sites around the world and have created five site VPNs across it. We are running a pretty decent policy to make sure internally our infrastructure is secure.

The product offers excellent security. How open they are with new risks and new vulnerabilities is very helpful in the task of keeping our company safe from malicious attacks.

Newer versions are much more stable.

The UI could use some improvement. It's not as clean or seamless as it could be. 

It's my understanding that the initial setup is a bit complex. There's a bit of a learning curve if you're trying to set it up for the first time and you aren't familiar with the product.

Older versions were a bit unstable. 

We've been using the solution for six or seven years so far. It's been a while. 

While this version seems to be quite stable, Check Point, in previous versions, had a lot of issues when we used to do firmware updates.

We have 200 people on the solution currently. 

I also have experience with Fortinet. I don't have too much, however. It's still very new to me, and therefore it's hard to compare the two solutions. 

While I didn't directly participate in the implementation, from the people that participated, I've heard that it's complicated if you don't know the product very well.

We hired a company to do the implementation. I don't remember the dynamics of the team. The last time it was set up, there were two people on the implementation team. 

While we don't have a direct relationship with the company, we do have business relationships with both Fortinet and Checkpoint partners.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for web filtering and threat analysis.

The reporting needs to be improved. I still don't have access to the reporting service.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for three years.

I am not sure which version is being used at this time. If we are not using the latest version, we are using the version before that.

We have recently had some issues with the stability of this solution. It is not stable.

We had an issue when we made some improvements to our power supply and the Check Point stopped working and needed to be recovered. There were many errors in the file system and it could not start. It blocked the work for the entire factory. We lost three days where we could not work.

That was the final straw for us and why we are moving to FortiGate.

Our company is outsourcing the support.

We are also using Fortinet FortiGate 600 and 200. We have also just ordered Palo Alto.

We pay the licensing fees on a yearly basis.

We are one of the largest manufacturers of steel in Europe.

I would not recommend this solution to others. I am very disappointed.

I would rate Check Point NGFW a five out of ten.

We primarily use it for security.

The most valuable features for us are the solution's identity awareness and intrusion prevention.

The solution is very stable.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

Technical support is very good.

The complexity could be fixed. It's a bit complex to set up, for example. They could make it a streamlined and easier process. 

In a future release, it would be nice if they added web administration capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for about 20 years. It's been two decades at this point. I've used it for quite a while. 

The stability of the solution has been excellent so far. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability of the product is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can. It's not hard. 

We have found the technical support to be very helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support we get from them.

The initial setup is not easy. It's a bit complex. 

We're a partner.

I'd recommend this solution to other users and companies. We've been happy with its capabilities. 

I'd give the solution a rating of nine out of ten.

Our customers primarily buy the solution to protect the network from malware at the perimeter of the Network. The next-gen firewalls help the customer to have an application-level control of the traffic.

The features that I have found most valuable are its flexibility and user interface. This is already a well-established product in the market for quite a long time, more than 20 years. They've got a huge customer base.

In terms of what could be improved, I'd like granularity where you can have all the levels of policies that are defined. 

In additional feature that could be added to this solution in the future is micro-segmentation, like Palo Alto has on the firewall itself.

I began using Check Point Next Generation Firewall very recently, about four or five months ago.

We have an internal team for maintenance.

In terms of scalability, what we have seen is that it has a big deployment right now. So it all depends on what kind of environment the customer has. If he's already a Check Point user, it is easy for them, but if it is migrating from one platform to another, it is a little complex. One more thing is that the skillset availability required for Check Point is, in terms of implementation, a little less compared to others. The resources and the technical stuff are there for implementation. You find fewer people on Check Point compared to Sophos or Fortinet or any other platform.

The installation process, if it is a greenfield opportunity, is easy. If it is a migration from one platform to another, you need to have expertise on both the technologies. Let's say for example you're migrating from Fortinet to Check Point, or from Sophos to Check Point or Check Point to any other, you need to have expertise on the platform, even though you should have good experience in terms of migrating and technologies.

In my experience, Check Point provides both in-depth experience and cost-effectiveness compared to Palo Alto. So, Check Point is good for customers already using Check Point and Palo Alto is for anybody who wants to have the latest and most advanced features and has a good budget.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Check Point NGFW an 8.

As a next-generation firewall, this product is capable of handling all kinds of threats that might try to attack the network, including events such as DDoS attacks. 

The compliance part of the product has been very useful to our organization. There are many useful reports from this firewall device. For example, it can tell us how much of our network has compliance with the guidelines that are in place.

The product is very easy to use.

It's quite a stable solution.

The scalability is very good.

The solution is easy to install and deploy.

The product could always be even more stable and secure, as it would improve protection.

As we aren't using the very latest iteration, it's hard to say which features are lacking, as some might have been added in the latest releases we haven't yet migrated over to.

The pricing could always be more competitive.

Technical support needs to be more helpful.

I've been using the solution for the last six months or so. It's been less than a year, and therefore, it hasn't been that long. 

The stability is good. There are no bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution offers good scalability. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not hard.

We have 50 users on the solution right now.

I would say that technical support could be better. We also use Cisco, and, in comparison, Cisco's support is way better in terms of how helpful and responsive they are. We aren't as satisfied with Check Point. They need to be faster, friendlier, and much more knowledgeable. 

Right now I am using Check Point and Cisco ASA.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment doesn't take long either. It's a fast process.

You only really need two people for deployment and maintenance for most setups.

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant. 

The solution could work to make the pricing a bit lower. It's similar in cost to Palo Alto, however, if it was lower, it would make them more competitive. 

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Check Point. 

We are not using the latest version of the solution, however, I cannot speak to the actual version number. We might be a version or two behind the latest update.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've largely been quite pleased with its capabilities.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies.