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. 

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.

We use Check Point NGFW for perimeter protection of our network from the internet. We also use it for threat protection at the network level and the endpoint level.

We provide implementation, installation, and support services. We know about all types of firewalls, and we work with all types of installations. We usually use appliances, but in test environments, we use virtual appliances.

It is easy to use, and its management is the best. Check Point has a great unified management solution for firewalls and security products. 

Their technical support can be better. In addition, when we need to use it in a government environment, we face a lot of legal issues related to different types of certifications. It would be better to improve it for these issues.

Check Point doesn't have a SOAR system. They work with Siemplify, but it is an integration with another vendor. It would be great if Check Point has an integrated SOAR system.

We have been dealing with Check Point firewalls in our company for more than 20 years.

It is quite stable, but it can vary based on the version.

It is scalable. We can use the Maestro solution from Check Point for scalability. We can add new appliances as the company grows. If we need more performance and throughput, we can add additional appliances and have more performance. Check Point Maestro is the best solution for scalability.

Their technical support can be better.

Its initial setup is easy for me. The deployment duration varies. A simple deployment takes two or three days. A complex deployment that involves a cluster configuration or appliance replacement can take up to five days.

Its price is reasonable. If we compare its TCO for three years, it is more reasonable than some of the other vendors such as Fortinet, Palo Alto, etc.

I would recommend this solution. It is a great solution for endpoint protection and threat prevention. I have been working with Check Point products for a very long time. Check Point is one of our best vendors, and they make great products. 

I would advise others to learn about firewalls and other Check Point solutions. They have a lot of different solutions. If you choose their firewall, it would be useful to know more about other solutions. It would be one of the ways to improve the protection of your network with Check Point.

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

We use this solution for perimeter security and data center security.

On the firewall side, the security efficacy is good. The interface for application filtering and application-based policies is also good. They have good roadmap on the cloud as well.

This solution requires management software that is sold separately; it's actually a different appliance altogether. For smaller customers or smaller environments, this becomes an added entity in the environment. Not to mention, they'll also have to invest a lot in the necessary management stations. If that came built-in, it would really benefit smaller businesses. 

The performance when you enable decryption could be improved. That's a CPU-intensive task. Many customers struggle if they try to implement decryption — it can really hamper the performance. It's probably something to do with the appliance or the hardware design. This needs to be examined further.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for roughly five years. 

This solution is quite stable. Performance-wise, I have seen customers using this solution for years without issue. 

There are different models available. Sizing can be done accordingly. They have a good range of versions available for small to large data centers. So, scalability is definitely there. 

As I am not an end-user, I haven't really had any contact with support. Still, none of my customers have had any complaints regarding support.

The initial setup was fairly easy. Still, compared to other vendors, the learning curve is a bit complex. 

Compared with Palo Alto and Cisco, the price of this solution is quite fair. Compared to Fortinet and other vendors, it's probably a little bit on the higher side. Really, it all depends on what you get at the end of the day.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. 

I would definitely recommend this solution. It's a good platform for perimeter security. In an enterprise, you need good security. There's endpoint security, network security, and cloud security. Check Point's strongest point is network security; they still need to catch up on endpoint and cloud security. If you're interested in integrating all of these tools, then there are better products available. However, as far as network security is concerned, Check Point is really good.