We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Cisco Secure Firewall based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Check Point users are happier with its VPN and with its pricing. However, Cisco Secure users are happier with its service and support.
"It creates granular security policies based on users or groups to identify, block or limit the usage of web applications."
"The Network Address Translation (NAT) will always be a valuable feature as it allows me to turn my private cloud to the public at the click of a button and have secure control over the accessible servers/applications."
"Its size does not limit the great power of perimeter security that this technology provides."
"We have all the features we want or need in this appliance. It's been good so far."
"By far, it's the best security solution one can adopt for their organization."
"We have found the solution to be scalable."
"I love the redesigned interface starting with R80 as well as the ability for multiple engineers to work on the policy simultaneously."
"Its auditing features are good for checking who did what changes and when."
"When it comes to the integration among Cisco tools, we find it easy. It's a very practical integration with other components as well."
"I like the ASDM for the firewall because it is visual. With the command line, it is harder to visualize what is going on. A picture is worth a thousand words."
"The remote VPN and IPsec VPN or site-to-site VPN features are valuable. The clustering feature is also valuable. We have two ISP links. Whenever there is a failover, users don't even get to know. The transition is very smooth, and the users don't notice any latency. So, remote VPN, site-to-site VPN, and failover are three very powerful features of Cisco ASA."
"Feature-wise, we mostly use IPS because it is a security requirement to protect against attacks from outside and inside. This is where IPS helps us out a bunch."
"I like the IPS feature, it is the most valuable."
"The technical support is excellent. I would rate it as 10 out of 10. When there has been an issue, we have had a good response from them."
"The product is quite robust and durable."
"The most valuable feature would be the IP blocking. It gets rid of things that you don't need in your environment."
"The firewall throughput or performance reduces drastically after enabling each module/blade."
"Support cases have been generated several times, and it takes time for the case to be resolved."
"The complexity could be fixed. It's a bit complex to set up, for example."
"The price is middling. It's much more expensive than Fortinet, although not so expensive when compared with Palo Alto."
"When you want to open the gateway by double-clicking on the interface, sometimes it can cause silly problems such as freezing."
"There is no email security."
"There should be better integration with our current NAC solution to increase the granularity of policies that we implement."
"The only downside to Check Point, is, due to the vast expanse of configurable options, it does become easily overwhelming."
"An area for improvement is the graphical user interface. That is something that is coming up now. They could make the product more user-friendly. A better GUI is something that would make life much easier."
"I would like to see them update the GUI so that it doesn't look like it was made in 1995."
"I think the ASA layer is thin. It's always Layer 3 or Layer 4 source controller and doesn't control the Layer 7 traffic. It's important, and you'll need an additional firewall."
"The access layer of this solution could be improved in terms of the way the devices interconnect with our network. We need to be able to analyze the traffic between the different interconnection in these areas."
"The visibility for VPN is one big part. The policy administration could be improved in terms of customizations and flexibility for changing it to our needs."
"We are replacing ASA with FTD which offers many new features not available using ASA."
"Cisco wasn't first-to-market with NGFWs... they should look at what other vendors are doing and try not only to be on the same wavelength but a little bit better."
"It doesn't have Layer 7 security."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 163 reviews while Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 2nd in Firewalls with 91 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 9.0, while Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Centrally managed, good antivirus and attack prevention capabilities, knowledgeable support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "The ability to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments is important, given the fluidity in the world of security". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Azure Firewall, pfSense and OPNsense, whereas Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki MX, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, pfSense and Sophos XG. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Cisco Secure Firewall 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.