Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

My main use case for Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is that we use it for a perimeter firewall and separation firewall.

The best features Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) offers are that it's a good product with a lot of features and a great GUI interface to manage it.

The interface of Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) stands out because in a single point, I can read all the logs of my device.

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) has positively impacted my organization because it is our core security system, and it performs effectively.

At the moment, I haven't any ideas on how Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) can be improved.

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

Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is very stable.

For our company, Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is scalable enough.

We reached out for customer support and received the correct support, the support that we needed.

Before Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW), we used an old Check Point firewall.

I don't have information on whether we have seen a return on investment with Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

I don't know the price because I only made the technical decision, but I spoke about the price with my manager.

We stayed with Check Point and did not evaluate other options before choosing Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW).

I would rate Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) a nine out of ten because I think we can improve the product a little bit.

My advice to others looking into using Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) is that it is a good product and can solve a lot of security problems in your company.

My company does not have a business relationship with the vendor other than being a customer, as we are an end user.

I was offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

I prefer not to use my real name or company name when publishing my review.

We needed stateful inspection, logging, integration with Active Directory, and the ability to monitor devices using standard SNMP for use cases. Now, with the tool's Skyline product and OpenTelemetry, we can monitor it through Prometheus and Grafana. It has all the features we needed when we certified the solution.

Integration with Active Directory, IPS, standard VPN, and the firewall itself are the most valuable features for us. We haven't yet certified or aren't using Application Control, anti-bot, or anti-virus features.

Significant improvements have been made in the product. I started working with the R65 code and then upgraded to R74.40. When they transitioned from R77.30 to R80.x, they made major back-end modifications, switching from a flat file system to Solaris and Postgres. This was a big step that neither customers nor their support staff were fully prepared for.

Now, they're adding more features due to the increased flexibility of the new back-end. The main improvement I'd suggest is better preparation when introducing new features. Before releasing, they must train their support staff to troubleshoot these new features. The transition from R77.30 to R80.x was problematic due to a lack of preparation by Check Point, customers, and support.

Sizing is crucial, but we've never had issues with the products we've sized for each environment. The Maestro solution provides a lot of flexibility. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the highest scalability, I'd rate it a ten.

I use Palo Alto firewalls. Check Point NGFW was the first to invent the stateful inspection firewall. They focus more on security and try to keep their motto of "keep security simple". They don't get bogged down in marketing or complicated terminology when using their products.

Even enabling a firewall blade on Palo Alto requires learning about different sync ports, how sync ports differ between chassis, and navigating through multiple GUI tabs for configuration. It's not as straightforward.

On the other hand, Check Point NGFW has kept things very simple for deployment. You set it up once, and then you can repeat the same process repeatedly.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the easiest, I'd rate the initial setup as ten. The process is straightforward: you rack and stack, configure the management code, create a standard policy, establish SIC, and push the policy. This process has remained consistent over the years.

For deployment, it took us longer than the typical two weeks because we had to design solutions for different scenarios. Check Point offers various options, such as clustering solutions, Maestro solutions, and standalone solutions. We had different use cases—some required standard clusters with ClusterXL, while others needed scalability solutions like Maestro. We also had to factor in sizing considerations.

The certification process took about the same amount of time as other products. We've been using the Maestro solution for a while now, so when new platforms are released, there isn't much change required beyond certifying the new hardware and ensuring backward compatibility with our certified solution.

Initially, it took a little more than two weeks to certify. However, the actual deployment still follows the same standard process and is actually easier now than it was in the past.

We call the team responsible for deploying certified solutions to the service delivery team. It's made up of two groups: build services and service delivery. The build services team works with our networking team to ensure our network and peering devices are set up right to host the firewall.

The service delivery team focuses more on the firewall itself. We need about three or four extra people from build services for firewall deployment. They act as go-betweens with the network team, ensuring our firewall solution works well with the peering devices when we put it in place. The build services team is important because they ensure everything fits together properly when we set up our firewall.

For maintenance, the solution is pretty stable. We have a global team, but a separate team handles regular firewall changes and daily operations. For support, we have about ten people total - three groups of three people each. This team manages around 1200 firewalls, including Check Point and Palo Alto devices.

Check Point NGFW is much cheaper than other platforms, including Palo Alto. Its scalability, especially with the Maestro solution, is a big advantage. If you're looking for good security at a reasonable price with a good return on investment, I believe Check Point NGFW is the way to go.

I've been dealing with Check Point NGFW for my entire career. I started with their Stateful Inspection feature. The term "Next Generation Firewall" is just marketing. Check Point's UTM product was designed from the ground up with next-generation features. They have a feature called Blaze. Besides stateful inspection firewalls and VPNs, they offer IPS, application control, URL filtering, antivirus, and antibot. You can also integrate it with third-party tools like Active Directory for authentication. This combination of features is what's called a next-generation firewall.

Other vendors use terms like app ID or user ID. They focus less on ports and more on ensuring services match their intended use. For example, if port 22 is enabled, it should be for SSH service, not something else. We use both Check Point NGFW and other products. I think if you commit to one vendor's approach, it can be hard to switch late.

Check Point is mainly used for internal communication. Our clients have multiple platforms, and customers use it for internal communications and protection, from the DMZ to the LAN to the DMZ, and also for MPLS connectivity with multiple branches. 

As I've seen, the customers also use it as a gateway for publishing their website. This is only for the perimeter, however.

It is very easy to identify the logs. It is also very well managed because of the threat cloud architecture. 

Another thing is that whenever we make changes on the firewall, we first need to publish them and then install the policies. This allows us to double-check the policies before they are implemented, which is helpful.

We faced many challenges. For example, an issue with the managed view that Check Point has. When clicking on a rule, we are supposed to have a full view of that rule and its log portion. This should show what's passing through the rule, what's coming to the rule, and all of that on a single pane of glass. Currently, the log isn't showing when we click on a particular rule. This might be an issue with an upgrade or something. Because of this, we can't implement anything on the live system; we only have a maintenance window every weekend, and it's hard to troubleshoot within an hour.

Another problem is that when we created around two lakhs of Check Point objects on the firewall, it became very slow.

I have been using it for two months. 

It is not slow. But, we implemented two lakhs of objects on the firewall, and that caused the slowness. It can happen with all firewalls, not only Check Point.

Currently, I work with enterprise customers.

It was good. No issues with that.

Positive

I can recommend Check Point, Fortinet, and even SonicWall. 

I come from a system integrator background, we first understand the customer's requirements before suggesting a firewall. Sometimes we aggressively push SonicWall because the user's requirements are more aligned with SonicWall. That's how we propose solutions.

It is very easy to install, not that complicated.

The complexity and time depend on the customer's requirements.

No maintenance: In the past two months, we haven't faced anything that required replacements on the firewall.

Pricing is good. The price is very reasonable for enterprise customers.

It offers average pricing. Previously, I worked as a system integrator, and we faced some cross-product environments where Check Point was quite costly compared to the product we were working with.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use it for safeguarding our office network on a routine basis. These firewalls protect against external threats, manage VPN access for remote users, and address various security scenarios. Our primary focus involves malware prevention, intrusion detection, and ensuring robust security measures to shield our office network from potential cyber threats originating from the internet. It serves as a traditional yet effective security system, providing comprehensive protection against hackers and potential risks associated with internet usage.

It provides a comprehensive and scalable security solution. With features like nanosecurity, cloud integration, and multi-domain management, they address the diverse security needs of businesses, from small enterprises to large corporations. It excels in malware prevention, utilizing features like fan black pattern and vulnerability-driven detection, ensuring comprehensive security against evolving threats.  It boasts an Infinity architecture, offering a multitude of features tailored to enterprise needs. The integration with AWS and Google Cloud, safeguarding cloud servers and networks. The Multi-Domain Management feature enables centralized control across on-premises and cloud environments, streamlining security management.

There is room for enhancement in the support system in India. Given the burgeoning market and the growing reliance on security solutions, focusing on strengthening support and implementation infrastructure would be beneficial. This could involve increased training programs to equip professionals with the necessary skills to understand and effectively implement Check Point technologies. Its scalability capabilities should be improved.

It's an exceptionally stable tool. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Scaling up is quite restricted, and the scalability needs improvement. It should be a multi-tiered and robust solution. Currently, there is a gap in the ability to seamlessly scale within the same series. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Technical support in India is lacking, and there's a clear need for improvement. There's a high reliance on third-party support, which needs to be addressed. The current rating would be around five on a scale of one to ten.

Neutral

The implementation process is generally straightforward and basic, taking around one to one and a half hours. However, if there's a need for the creation of numerous VLANs and policies, it might extend over several days.

It comes with a significant price. The cost of the six thousand six hundred models was approximately thirty-eight lakhs. Although the cost may be higher, the reliability and functionality it offers are well worth the investment. I would rate it ten out of ten.

I consider it a top leader in security, and I highly recommend it. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

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.

My customer is one of the big banks in Bangladesh, and they use the solution to protect themselves from malware.

The solution's most valuable feature is CDR (content disarm and reconstruction). The Infiniti Portal feature helps manage the firewall and get a proper report, which is required for management. Capacity and Maestro are good features that can produce better firewall speed.

I want better (DPI) Deep Packet Inspection in Check Point NGFW. The solution should include some behavioral features to detect the malware smartly.

Check Point NGFW is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability nine and a half out of ten.

Around 20 small and medium businesses are using the solution. The solution's scalability is really good. It has a feature called Maestro, which can increase bandwidth by three terabytes.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution provides good technical support.

Positive

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is not a cheap solution. Customers often need to pay a premium for its services.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is a good firewall. You can mount it into your firewall in every country and have the report. You can find out how good it is. Customers can change this firewall or determine the efficiency of other firewalls, including Check Point. After 15 days, they can see the report, which is a good feature.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It's just enterprise firewalls, firewall clusters for redundancy to secure the company network from the internet, and as well as a data center firewall, for example, if you want to split up subnets to control traffic between them.

The management is very handy and intuitive, and it has a lot of features. I think it's one of the products in this market which has the most possibilities.

I saw some other firewall vendors or firewall solutions from other vendors. And maybe I like it because I'm very familiar with Check Point and the management of the Check Point gateways. So, probably, I'm just not aware of how other solutions work and how to use them. 

We also see or have a lot of customers with Palo Alto. That's also a solution we see a lot, but we have been a Check Point partner for more than seven or eight years since the beginning of our company. We have done a lot of research on firewall solutions. 

In our opinion, it's one of the best because the management is very handy. So it's easy to implement every possible configuration, and you have a good oversight of your rule set. 

If I compare it with Cisco Meraki, for example, if the rules grow, then it's very hard to get oversight or to have oversight over the whole rule set. So then it becomes hard to manage.

With Check Point, it's easy because even when you have 200 or more rules, it's still very user-friendly, and you can still quickly manage your whole rule set.

What I like about Meraki is the whole cloud-managed feature, where it can configure gateways in the cloud and preconfigure it as well. So I don't need to have access to the device or create a configuration in the cloud. 

And as soon as the firewall comes online connected to the internet, then it downloads its configuration from the cloud. I think Check Point does also have such a solution, but I'm not aware that it's as easy as Cisco Meraki. Sometimes it would be nice if they would have the same possibilities.

I have been using it for about five years now. 

I have not yet faced any challenges with performance or stability. Sometimes when we implement core firewalls, there are applications that have longer session timeouts than the Check Point firewalls in the default settings. 

Windows has a default session timeout for about two hours, I think, and Check Point's is one hour. So, it's not a performance issue, but the application will not run as well as before the security gateway analyzes and blocks traffic. So, it depends.

Scalability  is a very good point of Check Point's solution. They can scale very well and very large.

The technical support is also very well and specific. It's very useful to have technical support from Check Point.

Positive

I have experience with Nutanix Flow. It's also possible to enable training in Nutanix Flow where you can redirect the traffic to Check Point gateways. I think that's a very useful feature if you need layer seven traffic analysis and blocks. But I don't have any customers, or we don't have any customers, who use chaining. We also don't have any customers who use a micro-segmentation solution from Check Point. So, I'm not aware if they have a comparable solution like Flow.

For the initial setup, you need a good knowledge of the operating system, Gaia OS. It needs some knowledge to get started, but if you've done it once, then it's easygoing.

Normally, we check the customer's requirements. Then we start to deploy the gateway and start with a basic rule set so the customer is able to refine it for their needs. If we are in charge of creating a complete rule set, we will bring all the requirements into a concept and then create a rule set in a more suitable way.

Some customers have very basic requirements. If it's just to deploy the gateways, then it's very easy and quick. You just need maybe a few days and a maintenance window outside of business hours. But there are also customers who have a lot more requirements, like scanning or analyzing the traffic for subnets inside of the network. 

For example, a core firewall can be very time-consuming. You need to do a lot more research and concepts or write concepts on how to achieve that. That can take a few months.

For maintenance, you need to know what you do. It can be difficult if you don't know what you want to achieve. If you are not aware of network security, then probably it's not that easy, and you may run into configuration errors or mistakes. It's easy to manage, but you have to know what you do.

Check Point is not the cheapest vendor in the market, but it has everything you need compared to other solutions. So that's probably the main reason for the cost or the prices. I think it's probably on the same level as Palo Alto.

I would recommend Check Point to other users who are looking into implementing it.

I would advise others to compare or write down their requirements and have a look to see if Check Point is able to fulfill all the requirements.

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

Mostly enterprise customers use it for their system security as their main firewall. For example, some customers have multiple backup connections, including fiber connections, for redundancy. 

They use Check Point as the main firewall, and others use it for email scanning and file scanning to detect any vulnerabilities.

The firewall scanning, like antivirus scanning and malware scanning, are very good. Blocking the user is also very easy. If you want to block a user, we can just do it within the solution.

The reporting is quite easy and good, and you can see traffic in real-time. But compared to Sophos, Sophos is still better. There are still areas in Check Point that need to be improved.

It's actually quite good, but the only problem we faced was during COVID when people wanted to work from home. 

We had to use third-party software to give users access because the Check Point option didn't work as expected. So we used Check Point in the front, but we used third-party software for the virtualization of the applications and everything.

When using redundant connections, sometimes there are issues like one connection going down and switching to another connection. Also, breaking rules can be complicated. 

For example, if you want to make a rule for a specific connection, like assigning some users to one ISP and other users to another ISP, you have to use another device, like a third-party firewall intervention and routing, to get the desired results. Other than that, it's good performance-wise.

I've been working with Check Point for the past six or seven years. We always work with the latest version.

It's very stable. No issues there.

It's scalable.

Our clients have raised questions to technical support. They all have accounts, so we give them the login details. They send an email to support and get a support request. But normally, we try to handle everything on our own. 

If there's something we can't handle, like a firmware-level issue, only then do we get support from Check Point.

It depends on the client requirements also. Some government agencies need Check Point, and some clients need others like Cisco or Sophos. After Cisco, a lot of clients have changed to Sophos. So, we provide solutions depending on the client's requirements.

The initial setup is straightforward, just like any other normal firewall. 

• Deployment strategy: 

The deployment process depends on the client. For example, if it's an existing customer with an existing firewall, we first see what their current requirements are from the existing firewall, what they need to implement but cannot, or what challenges they are having. 

Then we compare the features of the existing firewall and Check Point firewall, and we tell them what the rules will be, like incoming and outbound rules. We try to see what is the fastest way, without any downtime, how we can point or configure the checkpoint. 

Then, after that, we do the testing, because almost all of the offices need that. So, normally, once we set it up, we give them one month for testing. Normally, for a better line or something, we just use a certain IT department or a sub-department for testing. After that, if it's okay, we hand it over.

In a nutshell:

Requirement Analysis →  Feature Comparison  → Rule Definition → Testing and Validation → Phased Rollout → Client Acceptance

• Deployment time: 

Normally, for a site, more or less, less than one month. It depends on the number of users. If there are a very large number of users, like 600,000, then it will take around one month or more.

• Deployment resources: 

Normally, we have two technicians working. One is from the Philippines, trained in Sophos and Check Point. We don't need many more staff for the implementation.

• Maintenance: 

It's very easy. Only the licensing. Every year, we have to pay, but sometimes clients talk about the cost. Also, very recently, there was a ransomware issue. The only issue is, for example, if it's ransomware, and it doesn't get detected by Check Point and gets infected from another source, we have to prove that it's not from the outside but from the inside. Because there are a lot of case scenarios like this, those are the things mostly.

• Integration capabilities: 

Integration is a little bit challenging. It's much easier for integration with other applications and domains. When integrating with a domain, there are still some small issues. For example, when applying a group from the domain controller, we sometimes need to test a firewall and do some reporting. There are small issues like that for the integration of LDAP. Other than that, it's good. It can pull up the users and groups, but there are some minor issues when we apply them.

It's effective and good.

Compared to Sophos and others, Check Point pricing is good for the current market.

In terms of features, Check Point and other firewalls are almost the same. There are no special or advanced features.

I can recommend it to other people. Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Currently, we utilize Check Point firewalls, IPS, site-to-site VPN, and remote access VPN features for our various client operations.

We have implemented a cloud firewall for one of our customers and primarily handle perimeter security using Check Point firewalls for multiple customers.

We also handle POCs, implementation, upgrades, and daily security operations as part of our services.

We are distributor partners who also distribute Check Point products to our customers. We recently convinced our clients to use Check Point firewall services and signed a contract with them.

We have not received any issues from any clients using Check Point services so far. It is really great to use and up-to-date. In Check Point, we have never seen it hit any vulnerabilities like other products.

Also, the TAC support from Check Point is excellent. I really appreciate it when dealing with complex issues. It allows us to easily obtain vendor support without many issues compared to other products.

Certifications and training from Check Point are valuable. I recently attended a boot camp and found it both knowledgeable and enjoyable.

Recently, I came across the Check Point Infinity AI feature in one of the Check Point webinars, which I believe is unique and will be very useful in the future.

Also, Check Point Harmony and Quantum deliver uncompromising performance with advanced threat prevention, policy management, remote access VPN IoT security, SD-WAN, and more.

Infinity Threat Prevention is an innovative management model. It provides zero-maintenance protection from zero-day threats and continuously and autonomously ensures that your protection is up-to-date with the latest cyber threats and prevention technologies.

The upgrade process of Check Point could be simplified to match other products.

For some of the MSSP partners, Check Point should personally go and give demos to them. This way, the MSSP can show their clients what Check Point is capable of and what kind of new technologies and features Check Point is coming up with.

Adding automation for upgrades and hotfix installation would be a beneficial new feature for administrators from an operations standpoint. Additionally, Check Point should pay more attention to endpoint security; they are currently lacking in that area compared to other competitors.

I've been using Check Point products for more than eight years.

The solution is 100% stable. 

The solution offers 100% scalability.

Technical support is very good.

Positive

No; we have multiple clients, so we use multiple products.

The setup is fine; I've only faced issues during upgrades.

The expertise of the vendor is excellent. I'd rate them ten out of ten.

The ROI is really good.

In terms of cost, pricing, and licensing, Check Point is not very expensive or complex.

We did not evaluate other options. 

My overall experience is really good. I am enjoying working with Check Point products, especially on the firewall. It's much easier compared to other firewalls.

The solution is used to provide firewall security to cloud integrations.  

The spoofing prevention feature is the most valuable feature.

The solution provider needs to upgrade the IPSec VPN port because VPN branch-to-branch configuration can be easily implemented at our company, but several difficulties arise in a cloud environment like AWS or Azure cloud. The aforementioned cloud providers often need to create VPN interfaces, but in a few cases, these teams don't have the knowledge for configuration or IP points; their knowledge remains limited to the architecture of the clouds on a networking level. 

In future releases of the solution, a remote access VPN feature should be added. Our organization expects the aforementioned feature because we have a secure validated configuration in our remote access VPN, and the feature would allow easy configuration.

For instance, if a customer wants to connect a VPN to a particular domain laptop, our company can integrate the domains with our network's remote access VPN, but the user is unable to connect with other personal laptops.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for five years. 

I would rate the stability of the solution as seven out of ten. The tech support is not operational sometimes, and in a few cases, the tech team of the vendor is unable to provide support with a proper explanation or resolution. Check Point NGFW fails to provide workarounds for certain issues and thus leads to huge time consumption for a single task. The support team of Check Point NGFW on a few occasions takes five to ten hours to resolve an urgent VPN issue which impacts the stability. 

At our company, if we raise an RMA for Check Point NGFW, it takes immense time, which is around 15 to 30 days, to obtain the box, whereas other vendors offer it within five to seven business days. Due to the aforementioned issue, our organization needs to implement a test device on the environment and purchase temporary licenses for that device so that the customers in a stand-alone environment can access the internet. 

In Check Point NGFW, sometimes the logs consume excess storage, and even the storing or indexing process is not implemented correctly. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

Support is available for Check Point NGFW, but the support team, in most cases, is unable to provide an effective and on-time solution after collecting logs. I would rate tech support a seven out of ten. 

Neutral

I worked with Palo Alto previously before transferring to Check Point NGFW. I wanted to learn about Check Point NGFW in-depth as it's considered a difficult solution compared to others, so I ventured into it. 

In our company, we have the option for both cloud-based and on-prem deployment of the solution. The management server integration is different for the aforementioned options. If the traditional management server is present locally, in that case, at our company, we are using the solution for integration, but if a cloud is involved, some keys need to be integrated with the cloud management to let the firewall have internet access. 

Almost every time when the management server reaches or expands to another country in our organization, we face difficulty with integrations. The deployment time of Check Point NGFW depends upon customer requirements, but it takes approximately 15 to 30 days. More feature integrations demand the involvement of more teams in the deployment process. In my area of business, about 50 to 70 customers are using Check Point NGFW. 

If the solution is in a cluster environment, a maintenance window is not required and most of our customers are using the solution in a clustering or stand-alone mode. 

It's an expensive solution. 

Most of our organization's customers are using Check Point NGFW for networks, as enhancing the firewall's performance is not required; if the firewall goes inactive, total protection decreases. Our organization's customers don't want to depend on any particular product and are thus investing in multiple security products. 

On a few occasions, integrating a RADIUS configuration with Check Point NGFW has been difficult because some versions are not supported. I have also faced trouble regarding authentication when integrating Check Point NGFW with Azure EAD. 

Recently, Check Point NGFW has been integrated with zero-threat AI security features. In our organization, we are installing the solution on the Blade architecture, where the aforementioned features function well enough. I would recommend Check Point NGFW to others. I would rate Check Point NGFW overall a six out of ten.