In summary, while Juniper vSRX is praised for its security features, performance, and integration capabilities, users have highlighted areas for improvement such as usability and interface issues. On the other hand, CloudGuard Network Security is appreciated for its firewall capabilities, user-friendly interface, and excellent customer support, but users have suggested enhancements in integration, setup process, and advanced threat intelligence features. Overall, both products offer valuable network security solutions with their unique strengths and weaknesses.
The summary above is based on 82 interviews we conducted recently with Juniper vSRX and CloudGuard Network Security users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"I am "headache free" that I don't have to categorize all the websites and that security has been pre categorized by the people, and that the services are getting updated. At least one part of my problem is over."
"The product offers very good security."
"The customization potential is quite impressive."
"It can expand easily."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"It's great for capturing the traffic and troubleshooting it."
"This version is stable. I don't have any issues with this solution, in our environment, it works well."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"The central management feature is a big plus, allowing us to manage both local and cloud gateways from one platform."
"It matches what we have on-prem. We kept the same management and the same functionality that we were having on-prem. It has simplified things for us because there is no new dashboard to touch."
"A unique architecture makes this product stand out from other solutions."
"The endpoint VPN is super stable. The routing is also very good. We tried a competing product first, but we could not make it work. We came across CloudGuard. The network routing across different virtual networks in Azure and AWS was way ahead of any of the other technologies. That helped us be able to cover the whole network using one single cluster."
"We have found the overall functionality of the product to be exactly similar to the physical product. The one good advantage is that it is cloud-based and can be deployed either as a part of a scale set or one can shut down the virtual machine and adjust the physical parameters of the virtual machine easily and bring it right back up."
"It makes securing our cloud workload super easy, and we are able to push any sort of policy changes we need pretty quickly"
"The solution is reliable."
"I find it really useful that CloudGuard supports all the main players on the Public Clouds market including AWS, GCP, and Azure, as well as some exotic ones like Alibaba Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and IBM Cloud."
"The hardware is stable."
"The most valuable features are application filtering, content filtering, the intrusion prevention system (IPS), and definitely the application firewall."
"It's much faster to deploy a power source. If you need to deploy a firewall in the cloud of software, it's much easier and much faster than deploying the office firewall in a rush."
"The dashboard, customization, API, and pricing are good."
"The technical support has been good."
"It's basic functionality is probably the most valuable feature."
"The architecture of the OS in Juniper is very good. It's flexibility, scalability, and the technicality is also good."
"It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security."
"The inability to scale the FortiAnalyzer to match our growth necessitates the purchase of new hardware."
"The setup is pretty complex and not easy to implement."
"I have to say that the initial setup was complex. The deployment took a few days to get set up. Initially, we were using an IPVanish. We switched to this tool since we thought it would be easier. But it turns out it wasn't easier to set up and run."
"Backup can be improved."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"I use the FortiGate 60D model and realized the 300Mbps bandwidth limitation. Because it is a product that offers many services, I think it could have greater bandwidth capacity."
"The networking system updates, when delayed, can lead to misconfigurations and data loss."
"The price of the solution could be reduced, it is expensive."
"It is somewhat problematic in the area of the cloud."
"In case the device is inaccessible due to some issue such as CPU or memory, there is no separate port or hardware partition provided for troubleshooting purposes."
"Its architecture and user interface need improvement. The user experience for this solution also needs to be improved, particularly in implementation, management, and operations."
"From the policy optimization point of view, they can do better. This is not just for CloudGuard. CloudGuard is one little piece managed by Check Point. They can also integrate a third-party policy management solution to improve that. For example, Tufin is focused on policy optimization and management."
"With the incorporation of a lot of AI and machine learning, they can build some sort of a matrix for low-level threats or low-level things that require attention. There can be automation of those tasks so that we don't have to take more time and effort. There should be machine learning to eliminate level-one types of tasks."
"They are coming out with more SD-WAN express route support from a firewall perspective. That would be great."
"The tool's basic license does not cover everything. It needs to improve visibility and availability."
"The GUI really needs a lot of work, and it has got worse with successive version updates."
"There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing."
"They really need to improve the GUI."
"Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products."
"We experienced some technical issues during implementation"
"VPN access is an area that needs improvement."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the GUI because it isn't very good."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 119 reviews while Juniper vSRX is ranked 26th in Firewalls with 30 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Cisco Secure Firewall and Zscaler Cloud Firewall. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Juniper vSRX report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
