We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and SonicWall NSa based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The SD-WAN function is very developed. It has SD-WAN functionality with security features in one device. We can manage from one single console SD-WAN and the security policy."
"I like that they have given me a solution at a fair price."
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"The scalability is good in Fortinet FortiGate."
"A strong point of FortiGate is the graphical interface is complete and easy to use."
"Mainly the FortiGate reporting system is very good. It guides us through all the expectations of security. Fortinet provides us all that we need for security. Also, Fortinet FortiGate is a next-generation firewall. It is much more advanced than others."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"Fortinet FortiGate is user-friendly and affordable."
"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."
"When browsing, it scans sites to ensure that they are safe and that no harm can be caused."
"Auto Scaling is one of the features that make me want to choose CloudGuard over actual HW."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"The tool's most valuable features are threat prevention and protection mechanisms."
"The 24/7 online customer support services enhance effective operations and provide quick services in case of a system failure."
"The most valuable feature for us is the ability to run the gateways as virtual machines in our virtual data center. The tool protects the virtual data centers."
"The query feature is going to be a game-changer for us as we move forward."
"The most valuable feature of SonicWall NSa is the control aspect of the solution."
"We can do the hosting and security all under one box. The UTM is a good feature."
"We like the features, but the main thing is from a commercial and cost perspective it is very good."
"The prices are similar to other vendors and the support is good."
"User-friendly with good security and application control."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is its ability to work like any other firewall."
"What I like best about SonicWall NSa is the security it offers compared to other solutions in the market. Its reduction rate is also better than others."
"SonicWall NSa's most valuable features are the ease of configuration and the GUI."
"While FortiGate is cheaper than most other solutions, we're seeing increased license renewal costs. Most of our clients are asking for more significant discounts because the price is going up."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"The way everything is set up could be easier. Currently, people need a lot of experience and knowledge to administer it and to link it to devices."
"There can be more security in hybrid implementations. When a customer has a hybrid environment where some parts are in the cloud, we need a consistent security solution for such scenarios."
"In the future, I would like to see improvements made to cloud-based management."
"We sometimes have issues with FortiGate's routing table in the latest firmware update. We had to downgrade the device because our customers complained about bugs."
"The cost is relatively high compared to the cost of other products in the market."
"The licensing structure is unclear, so a transparent and flexible licensing structure would be preferable."
"The initial deployment using the ARM template in Azure was straightforward, but migrating to Terraform added complexity, although we managed to make it work."
"Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM."
"If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Forcepoint in the Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it easily, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration."
"There is room for improvement in the integration with PaaS services from the public cloud. It would be very helpful."
"Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself."
"Documentation might become too complex or too spread out, especially for newcomers."
"They should consider upgrading the capabilities within the GUI."
"I would like to have a built-in vulnerability scanner in the firewall. It would be great to have such functionality. Its price could also be better. It would also be good to have a local warehouse. It doesn't get damaged a lot, but if a customer needs a replacement, currently, it has to come from Miami or Mexico, which can take a few days. It would be better if they have a local warehouse from where we can just pick replacements and quickly solve a client's needs in terms of replacing equipment. It would be great to have it locally instead of waiting for it from Mexico or the USA."
"The scalability is something that should be improved."
"The user interface could be better."
"It is very modular and with native resources which are much lower than its competitors."
"Some of the configurations could be better."
"The content ID needs to be improved."
"The security standards for space and point of view should be improved so that the solution deploys in critical areas."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 117 reviews while SonicWall NSa is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 77 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while SonicWall NSa 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 SonicWall NSa writes "Great performance and security with reasonable pricing". 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 SonicWall NSa is most compared with SonicWall TZ, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall and Netgate pfSense. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. SonicWall NSa report.
See our list of best Firewalls 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.
