Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is the internet gateway that provides the first layer of security defense from cyber threats to our private network. We are using this solution exclusively.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) has a policy where we have applied all the LAN to WAN policies as allowed with the security profile test. The security profile includes antivirus, anti-spyware, intrusion prevention systems, and sandboxing. All these security features are attached in the security policy.

The AI feature of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is excellent. We don't have to configure the NAT policy in the firewall because once we configure the object, we enable the NATting for that object. That is the main use case and feature that I appreciate the most.

In real use with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW), we don't have to worry about the zonal concept, such as LAN or WAN. We only have to configure the WAN IP. Based on the public IP detection, it will detect this as a WAN zone. We don't have to manually configure the zone or this type of configuration. It will automatically detect and create a security policy for allow policy for all that.

Since we are using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW), we are getting proper internet reachability and we are able to control user access to unwanted website access or application access.

For every product, there is space for improvement. I would suggest improving the usability of the command line of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) firewall, because the commands are hard to remember since it is based on Linux.

Apart from the complex CLI commands, everything with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is perfect, and securing our network is effective and efficient.

I have been using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) for more than four years.

We did not face any issues with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW). It is stable.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is handling the traffic and the growth of my organization. From a scalability perspective, it is good.

I interacted with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) support.

We evaluated the Fortinet next-generation firewall before choosing Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

I was not in the team that handled this, but our team suggested this for the setup cost or licensing related to Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW). I am not the person who looked after this.

For those looking for a security solution that attends to their needs as a first layer of defense and also connects the private network to the internet, Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) can be considered a good product. This review has a rating of 9.

I use it for UTM [Unified Threat Management]. I use a gateway firewall at the office.

Next Generation Firewall, along with Threat Emulation and Threat Extraction, is what I use. Real-time prevention is there to protect against zero-day malware and Check Point Sandbox.

And then, the CPU-based emulation is a better feature than any technologies not having that. Check Point has a CPU-based emulation. Normally, Fortinet and others, they do it differently. But these people work on a technology called CPU-based emulation. 

This CPU-based emulation is a unique CPU-level technology that catches malware before it has an opportunity to deploy or evade detection. They call it SandBlast. Check Point SandBlast Threat Emulation. That is a great feature, which they are using. It controls attempts to bypass OS security controls also. And then it avoids deep security.

I use our Check Point firewall for all the NATing of my applications. I use it for external traffic monitoring where my Internet links are connected, and I use it as a gateway.

The drawback is that I want to push the policy from my management console itself instead of on the Check Point device. For example, if I have two different firewalls, I want to push the policy to the gateway, and then it will take 10 to 20 minutes to roll back the policies. It should be applied faster.

I have been using it for more than a year.  

It is a stable product 99.4% of the time. 

Check Point NGFW has a feature where it can top two of the firewalls, and then we can integrate the performance. 

It's a cluster kind of solution where they can integrate.  

For the firewall, the support is good. 

Positive

I also use CloudGuard Security Posture Management. I also used Fortinet.

The major difference, I feel, is the threat emulation. It's zero-day protection. The supply chain attack is very, very low compared to all firewall vendors. 

For example, being parallel to Palo Alto Networks or FortiGate and NFT OS or Check Point, that supply chain attack was very, very low in our Check Point firewall. And then the maintenance was very, very low compared to all.

That is my takeaway. My one of my takeaways before proceeding with my procurement decision was that there are two things: one is the security point. Another one is performance. The last one is very, very important. That is for the supply chain attack because we need to concentrate more on other products also. 

So I don't want to spend too much time on the maintenance part. So this supply chain attack was very, very less compared to other providers since we are using multiple firewalls. This particular firmware was very stable, and there was no need to update until unless it is necessary and shared by Check Point team. So my takeaway is that the supply chain attack was very less compared to all.

If the person knows the technology and the basic functionalities of a firewall, they can integrate it very fast.

We took three days to deploy.

Three people were involved: my IT security manager, myself, and one L3 engineer who deployed the product.

The architecture and functionalities are managed by me, and then the deployment is taken care of by our team members.

Compared to Fortinet and Check Point, both are the same.

Check Point is coming up withsome AI integration and some AI features. They are using threat emulation on the AI front, but they are also discussing the quantum processor, where they have integrated many new features.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

My main use case for Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is enterprise-grade protection, and its security features, and we centrally manage and report using this tool.

We use Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) as our IPS and anti-bot software for enterprise-grade protection and centralized management.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) has impacted our organization positively because we're more secure.

I measure that improved security by noting that we've seen fewer security incidents.

The best features Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) offers are its advanced protection features such as IPS, anti-bot, sandboxing, and it reduces the need for multiple point solutions.

The sandbox and reduction of point solutions in Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) allow us to isolate an issue and solve it.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) can be improved with better cost and better reporting.

Regarding needed improvements, it's too expensive and specific aspects of the reporting could be better.

I have been using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) for four years.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is stable.

The scalability of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is good and it's easy to scale.

The customer support is okay, not bad.

Neutral

We didn't use any other solution before choosing Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was a good experience.

I have seen a return on investment.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was a good experience.

We didn't evaluate other options before choosing Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

I don't have any advice to give to others looking into using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.

I was not offered a gift card or incentive for this review and I don't have any additional thoughts about Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) before we wrap up.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) an eight.

In our customer environment, Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is used for edge security and internal security, both for data center and edge side.

We don't have Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) personally. We install it for our customers and then take care of it.

What I found very valuable in Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is the possibility to share everything with the ThreatCloud. For example, when a customer encounters a new virus, malware, or signature, it gets uploaded into the ThreatCloud and shared among all other customers.

The issues with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) are mainly related to reliability. It depends significantly on the hotfix version of the gateway. You could end up with a version that's stable or unstable, or for example, stable for one scenario, but then in certain specific scenarios, it becomes unstable and creates an issue. This requires contacting support, discussing with R&D, and verifying if there is a new version or custom fix to install.

I have been using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) for around two years, slightly more.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is stable overall and behaves the way it should. There are specific issues that are not just limited to the version, but they include processes and blades. When I mention specific issues, it involves different components that make up the security gateway.

Stability concerns are the main reason I chose a seven rating. It's very important for customers because they rely heavily on the security gateway to operate in order to maintain connections.

Based on the documentation, Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) should handle scalability effectively, since it's based on AI, making the throughput significantly bigger than its predecessor.

Customer support for Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is a bit of a hit and miss. Sometimes they have tunnel vision, so they only see the initial request and don't evaluate the whole scenario.

Neutral

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is that it is straightforward but still expensive. It's quite pricey.

The return on investment for Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) depends on the customer. Some customers didn't see the value and changed from Check Point to a different product.

Before choosing Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW), we evaluated Palo Alto Networks.

You can add blades in the gateway of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW). Blades are modules such as antivirus, anti-bot, or filtering, and they help prevent attacks or improve your security and perimeter.

The performance of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) varies based on whether it's a VM or a security appliance. The Quantum version, which is fairly new, focuses on the AI trend. It should have better throughput, better performance, and faster processing overall.

I rate Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) a seven out of ten because it's stable enough, works very well, and doesn't have many CVE vulnerabilities. However, it's sometimes unreliable in terms of stability, depending on the version. Many customers have a positive impact, while others have a worse experience.

I would recommend evaluating your needs for Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW). If you are a small company, this product might be too extensive for your necessities. It depends on the throughput, gigabyte requirements, and pure performance needs. You can always use a VM or SMB Quantum Spark.

My main use case for Check Point NGFW is using it as our data center firewall, which basically keeps the resources behind the data center safe from all the different cybersecurity threats.

Check Point NGFW has made a difference for our data center, especially when some people at some point tried to spoof their IPs within the organization, and upon checking the logs, we found a couple of IPs that had been blocked because they were trying to get in from a different network where we don't expect those IPs, so the traffic was denied because of the IP spoofing setup.

The best features Check Point NGFW offers include unified threat management, web filter engines, and intrusion prevention, which I find valuable because it's important for us to have the security behind the data center down to the dot, and because of the granular policies we set, we can manage every bit of security when it comes to the data center network.

One standout feature relates to a user feature that puts users into sessions every time they are configuring, meaning one person is not going to configure the same thing that another does, and it locks the configuration to avoid confusion where one changes one thing and another person changes something differently on the other side, and when you're done, the session is committed, and you can still roll back in case the commit has an issue, which I find quite beneficial.

Check Point NGFW has positively impacted my organization by providing confidence that it's managing all the threats out there for us, even though at any one point in time, threats are coming in all over the place. The sense of confidence and peace of mind is the biggest positive impact, as cybersecurity is a bit fragile, so a product that gives you peace of mind goes a long way.

I find that the licenses are a bit expensive compared to other vendors, and while the price is justified, at times, renewing them becomes a bit painful, so if it could become a bit more budget-friendly, that would work for me.

That licensing issue would be the main area regarding needed improvements.

I have been working in my current field for three years.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing process were smooth without any challenges.

Check Point NGFW is reliable, and in terms of scalability, I'd say it's quite okay, considering we're using data center grade, but also there are options for some of the remote branches that we have at a lower cost, so you don't have to buy the bigger devices for the smaller branches, making the scalability suitable, and I rate customer support highly because whenever you log a case with the right level of urgency, they deal with it promptly as required.

I would rate customer support a 10.

Positive

I'm not sure of that information, but I think a different solution was used before I arrived.

Regarding return on investment, it might not really be that kind of metric, but since we've deployed Check Point NGFW, we've not had any incident, which speaks for itself because that is basically what it's about. The fact that we've not had any breach toward the data center side is plenty enough.

My advice to others looking into using Check Point NGFW is that it's quite strong and reliable with cutting-edge threat prevention and unified management, making it a solid foundation for a profitable business. I rate Check Point NGFW a 10 out of 10.

My main use case for Check Point NGFW is to filter the whole infrastructure traffic, and we use it as the perimeter firewall for our data center.

Check Point NGFW helps me in my daily operations by managing traffic across almost 30 branches, and we utilize its SD-WAN features to communicate with other third-party companies through a VPN.

For branch communication, we use the SD-WAN feature of Check Point NGFW, and through the VPN, we establish a connection between our company and the third-party companies. Currently, we filter our traffic between the branch sites and third-parties, and access the internet through that exchange firewall.

The best features Check Point NGFW offers in my experience are its application identification and control capabilities, which stand out as we use them beyond Layer 3 communications.

The application identification and control feature of Check Point NGFW helps my organization by allowing quick responses to make decisions and segregate applications that need more attention.

Check Point NGFW positively impacts my organization as it has improved our security posture and made us less vulnerable to attacks compared to our previous status; we can easily filter URLs and enhance web security.

While we don't have specific numbers, we measure increased security through our ability to block malicious attacks, including phishing attacks, easily.

Check Point NGFW has a steep learning curve for starters; it's not easy to learn and is a bit complex to start from scratch.

Check Point NGFW sometimes has limitations on third-party integrations, requiring more specifics rather than being straightforward.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for almost two years.

Check Point NGFW is stable.

We scaled up Check Point NGFW about six months ago, and it handled that scalability fantastically.

Customer support for Check Point NGFW has been stable, even while we faced some issues.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution; it was similar to Cisco ASA.

The initial setup with Check Point NGFW was a bit complex.

We have seen a return on investment with Check Point NGFW as we have reduced incidents from the previous setup.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point NGFW is that the high subscription fees aren't easy to afford, and it's not recommended for mid-sized companies or businesses. The cost is a little bit high compared to other competitors.

Before choosing Check Point NGFW, I evaluated Cisco, but I didn't look into other options on PeerSpot.

I recommend Check Point NGFW to others looking into it because it's a good protective device.

From the vendor, I was not offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

Check Point NGFW is a fantastic product, and it is also easy to integrate with third-party devices.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Check Point NGFW a nine.

Our customers find that the Check Point NGFW highly effective for data center deployments. Additionally, smaller models are well-suited for branch locations where local internet breakout is necessary. These smaller models streamline internet access at remote sites, eliminating the need for third-party service providers and reducing costs. The 26000 and 28000 series excel in securing DMZs, while the lower-end versions are ideal for branch-level internet breakout, allowing direct cloud connectivity without intermediary networks. It offers cost savings and efficient security solutions tailored to various deployment scenarios.

Some of the most valuable features are URL filtering, web filtering, and content filtering. Typically, customers would need to invest in cloud web security solutions for local internet breakout. However, by deploying Check Point firewalls, which include these functionalities built-in at each site, the need for separate cloud-based solutions is eliminated. This consolidation reduces costs significantly, as one product serves multiple purposes: routing, switching, and next-generation security features such as timeboxing and malware filtering.

Check Point could enhance its capabilities further by focusing on global threat intelligence, particularly in addressing zero-day attacks and other unknown threats. If I were to suggest improvements for this firewall, it would involve enhancing its core features. Currently, there are many additional licenses available for purchase, such as DDoS protection, URL filtering, and global threat intelligence. These additional licenses increase the overall cost significantly, as they are add-ons to the base model. It would be beneficial if Check Point included more licenses bundled with the base model, reducing the need for additional subscription charges for essential functionalities.

I have been working with it for one year.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten. I'm uncertain about its performance in large enterprises, where stability is paramount. It's crucial that the firewall can handle high throughput, accommodating multiple gigabytes of bandwidth, alongside additional firewall features like web filtering, content filtering, and sandboxing. In my experience with capacities ranging from one hundred to two hundred megabytes, focusing solely on web and content filtering, the product has proven to be stable.

There is room for improvement in scalability. Adding more firewall features can impact the performance of the device, particularly in terms of processor capacity. I would rate it six out of ten. Our customers typically fall within the medium-sized business category.

All manuals are accessible on the website, ensuring comprehensive documentation is readily available. The publicly available documentation is satisfactory, covering a wide range of information. However, certain documents not accessible to the public are provided to partners through a partner sign-in portal. This access ensures that all necessary documentation is available within our organization.

The initial setup was quite straightforward. It involved basic configuration, which I would rate as an eight out of ten in terms of simplicity.

The deployment took approximately five hours. The process can be executed in various methods. I typically perform a remote login from the console. The deployment involves three main steps: IP configuration, security configuration, and DNS setup, including any necessary DNS protection configurations.

It falls in a moderate price range, not as inexpensive as some alternatives but not as costly as Palo Alto. I would rate it seven out of ten. There are numerous additional licenses required for advanced security features, leading to additional costs.

Check Point has introduced several SD-WAN and IoT features, among others. I would suggest exploring the zero-trust features offered by Check Point. Additionally, if interested in incorporating SD-WAN or IoT capabilities, these features are readily available within the product. It's important to note that in today's landscape, Check Point offers more than just a traditional firewall; it's a comprehensive and advanced solution. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The tool helps with VPN and connecting mobile devices. We also use it for identity security. It filters internet access and controls applications. The firewall has an intrusion prevention system and stops data loss. 

Internet access and filtering are important, and data loss prevention is definitely key. The threat access builder is useful. Application control is also big for us. We use it to check and block application downloads, looking for malicious or rogue software. This feature is very helpful.

Sometimes, the firewall doesn't pick up on certain things. If an attacker is clever and uses a low-profile indicator, the firewall might flag an anomaly but not give enough information to decide if it's worth investigating. The threat intelligence component also has challenges. It doesn't always tie alerts to active campaigns or threat actor groups. We often have to do extra work and use other products to figure these out.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 2500 users. 

The tool's support was responsive in critical situations, but for non-critical issues, they sometimes dropped the ball or didn't get back quickly enough. We had to do a lot of follow-ups and escalations to our technical account manager.

Neutral

Before choosing Check Point NGFW, we used Palo Alto Networks. We switched because of issues with Palo Alto. Their customer support wasn't very responsive. Some policies weren't working right, letting things through that should've been blocked. We compared different pricing options and features before deciding on Check Point NGFW. The main differences between Palo Alto and Check Point NGFW were mostly in how they worked for us. They both offer good next-gen firewalls, but we had some problems with Palo Alto. Sometimes it wouldn't notify us quickly when something got through. Its prevention wasn't always as strong as we wanted.

We felt Palo Alto's traffic inspection was only partial, not checking everything thoroughly. Check Point NGFW seemed to offer better inspection. Check Point NGFW also had better threat intel and application control. With Palo Alto, we couldn't see all our applications, only some of them. This caused shadow IT problems. Cost was also a factor in our decision.

The initial setup of Check Point NGFW is relatively straightforward. It's similar to other firewalls I've used and not too complex. If you have all the prerequisites in place, it's fairly easy to set up. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the easiest, I'd rate the setup process around seven or eight.

The deployment takes about a week. We had a deployment process that involved going through change management, getting approvals, notifying stakeholders like the infrastructure team, and deploying the solution.

We used a consultant for the deployment because we were dealing with other initiatives and it was a tight situation timing-wise, even though we could have done it in-house.

Aside from the consultant, we had two or three staff members involved in the deployment. Their job roles were mainly on the security side - security architects, engineers, and analysts. Their roles were fluid, so they could take on various tasks if they had the knowledge or interest. For maintaining the solution, the number of staff required depends on the scale of the deployment. In our setup, about two people were in charge as the main points of contact.

I saw definite operational impacts from using Check Point NGFW. It helped prevent breaches, data security issues, and security incidents. We constantly saw attempts being blocked and picked up by the firewall. This was an improvement over Palo Alto, where some things got through without being detected. With Check Point NGFW, we got a significant return on investment because it prevented a major incident from happening and escalating.

I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten. It costs around 100,000-200,000 dollars per month. Besides standard licensing fees, we paid extra for enterprise-level premium support. There were also onboarding costs factored in. These additional costs made it more expensive overall. The total cost was around 100,000 dollars, which was challenging for our budget. Check Point was also pricey, not much different from Palo Alto Networks. However, we decided switching to Check Point was better because it offered more capabilities for a similar price.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

Historically, the primary uses for these gateways were perimeter security and internet filtering. However, we now push all our internal traffic through the gateways for LAN segregation and to isolate obsolete operating systems.

Our isolated operating systems and LANs only allow specific traffic from a specific source to access them, making these critical production/business systems more secure. It's not a simple case of just replacing these legacy operating systems but replacing the industrial machinery that they control - which would require an investment of tens of millions of pounds.

Isolating obsolete operating systems wasn't in the scope when implementing the gateways originally. However, it has enabled us to secure Windows XP/Windows 7/2003/2008 machines which are end of support yet are still required to run industrial software and interface with large machines, which are not easy to replace.

Isolating machines and networks, along with SSL inspection, wasn't in scope when the gateways were spec'd. That said, five years later, they are still rock solid, and along with the Threat Cloud intelligence service, this ensures that our firewall is equipped with up-to-date threat intelligence, enhancing its ability to detect and mitigate emerging threats.

One of the strengths of Check Point Firewall lies in its granular policy management capabilities. We can define security policies based on a variety of criteria, including user identity, application, and content type. This level of granularity allows us to enforce security policies that align with our specific needs and compliance requirements.

One of the standout features of our Check Point Gateways is the user-friendly interface. Smart Console (management console) is well-designed and intuitive and provides administrators with a centralized hub for monitoring and configuring security policies. The web version isn't quite there yet, so to get the most out of it, the console needs to be installed, but it allows users to tailor it to their specific needs, and the menu structure is logical, making navigation a breeze for both novices and experienced administrators.

2FA on login would assist us with compliance however at the moment, it's not a major factor for us - yet may be in the future.

It would be nice to have comprehensive documentation and training resources that can help users and administrators better understand and utilize the full range of Check Point's capabilities. We ended up having to travel to London to sit through lots of training as we didn't find the information readily available.

Finding the costs associated with a particular blade can be challenging. This isn't specific to Check Point, but sometimes we need a ballpark cost quickly and don't have the time to speak to a reseller.

The company has been using Check Point gateways for around five years, myself about two years.

Hardware has been 100%; software has been slightly less as we had an issue where the gateways would failover. 

We run a pair of Gateways in HA mode, this solution has worked for us, and there have been no cases of downtime. Adding additional gateways should in theory be quite simple however for us there is no need.

Support has been quick to respond to any questions or issues.

Positive

The company used to sue Cisco Firepower. I wasn't with the company when switching.

The setup was straightforward; the implementation team went on the CCSA and CCSE courses.

We handled the setup initially in-house.

We ran these gateways for five years and will look to do the same with the replacements.

Work with Check Point's presale team and complete the scoping document. If you are an existing customer, use the CPSizeME. 

The company also evaluated Palo Alto.

We have run Check Point Security Gateways for five years and have had very few issues; they have been rock solid, and the hardware has been 100%.

We use it as NGWF for the DMZ area on our data center. 

We deployed HA configuration of Check Point Quantum 6200 to protect our user connection to the internet and to protect the server farm in our data center. 

In our first year, we got free access to the full capability of SandBlast, the Check Point solution for sandboxing features. We tested, yet felt the sandbox is not quite needed in our environment and thus changed the subscription for the second year and forward to the standard feature. 

Check Point can also be integrated with third-party solutions like SIEM and so on. 

Check Point has an awesome price-to-benefit ratio, netting you an awesome throughput of IDS/IPS capability compared to Palo Alto, Cisco, and so on. 

The first year also comes with a free SandBlast tier license, so you can test the full capability of Check Point to see if your companies might benefit from it or not. 

We also integrate our Check Point with SIEM Splunk and it integrates flawlessly without a hassle. If you are looking for a one-stop solution for cybersecurity, you should check out Check Point's portfolio!

The features we find valuable for our companies are:

- remote access VPN

- L4 and L7 firewall rules

- unified management platform provided by Smart-1

- management platform can be deployed on-premise or on the cloud

- full threat prevention by SandBlast

- support integration with 3rd party security vendors like Splunk, Qradar, etc

- high throughput for IDS/ IPS and NGFW only

- easy to scale up using Maestro

- built-in email security solution, endpoint protection, sandboxing, alert to administrator

The distributor support capability is quite lacking as the problem/incident is rarely solved on the distributor level and instead escalated to the principal. This makes the troubleshooting process too long and the people involved are too many. 

Socialization of new licensing or new features can be improved also. Principals and distributors need to work together closely to inform their customers so that we can stay updated about the latest trends and or threats/bugs that might happen in our Check Point gear.

We've been using Check Point for around two to three years. We use it primarily as NGFW and as sandboxing for zero-day threats.

Check Point is quite stable with new releases periodically throughout the year.

It is very easy to scale up or scale out and Maestro can improve the scalability a lot.

The response is quick and technical support gives clear answers.

Positive

We used Cisco Firepower and we felt that Check Point is more mature.

The initial setup is straightforward. The firewall and management setup is quite similar to other brands.

We implemented the solution through our in-house engineer.

We have witnessed ROI within four years.

Check Point provides quite reasonable pricing and licensing schemes.

We also evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet.

Check Point is great for comprehensive security solutions.