We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Juniper SRX Series Firewall based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point NGFW is highly recommended for its extensive security features, convenient centralized management, and impressive virtualization capabilities. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is well-known for its user-friendly interface, effortless usage, and excellent support.
Check Point should focus on improving integration, upgrading hardware, reducing costs, and enhancing stability. Juniper needs to work on capacity scalability, pricing strategy, reporting capabilities, user interface, device reliability, and feature enhancements.
Service and Support: The customer service for Check Point NGFW has garnered varying opinions, with some customers finding it helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement. Juniper SRX Series Firewall's customer service is generally deemed satisfactory, with customers appreciating its helpfulness and knowledge. However, there have been occasions where response times were slower and the need for escalation arose.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point NGFW's initial setup can be complex and may need expertise and experience for specific configurations and migrations. Juniper SRX Series Firewall generally has a simple setup process, although it may require CLI experience and coordination with the vendor.
Pricing: Check Point NGFW is known for its expensive setup cost, particularly when compared to other options. Users have found the process of adding new licensing to existing devices to be complex, especially for larger enterprise-level devices. Juniper SRX Series Firewall offers a more reasonable and affordable setup cost. Its setup process is straightforward, and the pricing is considered reasonable.
ROI: Check Point NGFW offers cost savings, simplicity, and effective security enforcement, providing peace of mind once the protection level is understood. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a valuable investment, delivering positive returns and enhanced security features.
Comparison Results: Based on the review answers, the Check Point NGFW is preferred over the Jun SRX Series Firewall. Check Point NGFW offers comprehensive security features such as URL filtering, intrusion prevention systems, identity and access management, and application control capabilities. It also provides centralized management and virtualization features, stability, ease of use, and scalability. Despite its higher pricing, Check Point NGFW is considered more reliable and secure. Additionally, its customer service and support are generally satisfactory.
"FortiGate has a strong security topic which allows all of the Fortinet devices to communicate and share information which makes their security more powerful."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"The customization potential is quite impressive."
"The UTM feature is quite good. FortiAP is easy to deploy because both Fortigate and FortiAP are under the same brand. Otherwise, you need to do more work on the configuration."
"The pricing is great and very reasonable."
"I think that the UTM features are the most value, as it truly protects my infrastructure."
"Consolidated our network environment at all locations, but mainly at our datacenter."
"The solution offers a good GUI."
"Check Point has a lot of features. The ones I love are the antivirus, intrusion prevention, and data loss prevention. Apart from that, there is central management through which we can integrate all the firewalls and support them. It makes it easy to manage all the firewalls."
"It's really simple to set up."
"One of the most advantageous features of Check Point firewall is its multi-interface capability."
"The AntiSpam/Mail blade was also one of the main reasons we went with this product since we hosted our email server locally. This was an extra layer of protection on top of the existing solution."
"The solution is easy to use. I like the monitoring the most."
"Now we can add application signature in the same rule base & don't have to create a different policy for that."
"As with any firewall, IPSEC VPN is the critical functionality. Not every organization has the budget to implement MPLS or SD-WAN, which makes IPSEC the go-to for site-to-site connectivity."
"The product provides good performance and has features comparable to other leading products in the market."
"It integrates well with Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"The solution has proven to be quite stable."
"When compared to Palo Alto, Juniper is a better choice when it comes to the enterprise network and connectivity."
"What I like the most about Juniper is that they have the same CLI on all routers, switches, and firewalls. If you have worked with any Juniper device, such as a Juniper router, you will be able to work with an SRX, which is really cool. It is a nice experience to work with every device of Juniper, not only firewalls."
"Commit: You can update the whole configuration without affecting the production. The new configuration will be loaded once the command "Commit" is submitted. You can also do a Commit confirmed to automatically roll back to the previous config after X minutes."
"The most valuable feature is the virtualization because it can be used for customers who are using the mobile data network to request a private connection to a remote site."
"The solution has been good for fulfilling our basic needs."
"The customization could be improved. Cisco, for example, is much better at this. They need to work to be at least as good as they are."
"It would be ideal if they had some sort of GUI interface for troubleshooting and diagnostics."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"The renewal price and the availability could be improved."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"Tunnel flapping was one of the major things I had seen wherein your internet link remains but your VPN tunnel is down. However, since I got a fix from the TAC team, I have not noticed it, but the customer complained a few times that they couldn't access the internet because of this problem."
"Finding support is a little bit hard."
"Check Point is not a cheap solution and it's always painful to see exactly how much we need to spend on this."
"I have had some issues in the past with the desktop client being slow to come up for logging in, and then slow to respond to screen changes, however, overall, it really hasn't been too bad."
"Bug Fixes and enhancement requests should be remediated earlier, as we have multiple dependencies and auditors are forced to have the latest possible environments."
"Pricing needs to be lowered from start, this would be more effective than lowering it during negotiations."
"In terms of what could be improved, we have a cluster with two nodes and usually we have some problems when process gets really high and it has to choose which services it keeps going. I would like to have a better solution here, like if instead of just one we could use both at the same time. It would be good if it could work together. Then when one has a failure or something like that, the other one is there to transfer, to take all the services and keep working."
"It would be great if the access management, the user management features, were improved in terms of the number of users that can be connected, and how users can access the various resources with the help of firewall authentication."
"We have run into an interface expansion limitation, and thus it would be helpful if products lower in the stack would offer more interface expansion options."
"Improvements can be made to the GUI. The GUI can be improved by creating policies to handle IPS requirements. The configuration should be a one-step process. This would make it easier to complete the setup to register the time of operation."
"The web interface on Juniper SRX is just a short conversion from Junos OS CLI; this is not very suitable for users with little expertise/"
"It would be ideal if the solution could use cloud services to help update signatures or threat prevention systems."
"It could be more secure."
"We purchased three devices and all three have been replaced under RMA."
"It was very difficult to deal with and required a lot of support, and the UI is very poor."
"The CLI is verbose. You have to say a lot to do a little. I don't like that part of it. Cisco's command syntax seems to be a good bit more concise. When you're trying to get something done, you don't want to have to type a bunch."
"The workplace management console needs improvement. It should be a little bit more developed. Also, the interface needs a bit more improvement."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 reviews while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 19th in Firewalls with 86 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and Meraki MX, whereas Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Meraki MX. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Juniper SRX Series Firewall report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and 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.
