We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled."
"The solution has good performance."
"Our users find the interface very comfortable to use."
"The solution offers high scalability as far as adding more users."
"The management of the solution is very simple. It allows for a single view of all the endpoints."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"One of the most outstanding features is the ability to deliver third-party services and achieve double authenticity with integrated identities."
"The initial set up is not complex."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN is a stable solution."
"The ability to create your trigger data domains is the solution's most valuable feature."
"It is geographically dispersed, and it sits on top of Google and AWS platforms. Therefore, you don't face the standard issues, such as latency or bandwidth issues, that you usually face in the case of on-prem data centers."
"The solution improved the consistency of our security controls and the BCP. There has been a 20 percent reduction in TCO. Prisma Access also enabled us to deliver better applications by centralizing security management."
"There are plenty of features this solution provides and the most valuable would be the complete security protection we are receiving. We are provided with similar security that the Palo Alto AWS solution has. This includes features such as a firewall and machine learning AI."
"It is easy to use, easy to integrate, and is stable. It's scalable as well."
"The stacked policies, event policies, and routing policies are easy to understand for someone with general knowledge."
"Panorama provides centralized management capabilities for all our firewalls and locations so that we can manage different data centers through a single device, a very valuable feature. We don't have to log into various devices to oversee them individually."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it offers stability and scalability while being a very secure product."
"There is a system for monitoring the traffic. You can monitor the traffic of the connected people and point out any issues on the connection part."
"There must be a more easy-to-use GUI."
"We have noted some stability issues."
"I would like the support to be faster."
"We'd like to integrate Check Point into the Remote Access VPN solution and have the ability to integrate multiple devices as access points through the solution."
"The Compliance software blade is available only for the Windows operating systems family, so no macOS security checks are implemented and performed."
"Generally, the license is included with the Check Point gateway licensing, however, in terms of the number of users that can be activated for use, it is generally five users."
"We would like to implement HTML5 (clientless access) in the product without installing any additional software."
"Sometimes it causes the consumption of machine resources, and also improves the scanning since they consume many resources in the clients' machines."
"Some configurations, like idle timeout (the requirement came from multiple users), are not possible to configure directly from the Check Point management server."
"There is some particular traffic that the security team wants to filter out and apply their own policies and they cannot."
"While Palo Alto has understood the essence of building capabilities around cloud technology and have come up with a CASB offering, that is a very new product. There are other companies that have better offerings for understanding cloud applications and have more graceful controls. That's something that Palo Alto needs to work on."
"We are using the SaaS offering. We use our applications for microservices. We use Twistlock to scan containers, and it displays these results in Prisma, which is a good feature because we can see vulnerabilities with respect to these containers. We can see everything in a very detailed manner. However, when you have different environments for a single application, such as DEV, QA, PROD, and TEST, all these environments run multiple containers, which can lead to a very high number of containers. In such a scenario, it shows you the alerts for all those containers that have vulnerabilities. If you show the results of all the containers that share the same image, it is not going to add any value. Therefore, they should narrow down the alerts based on a container. It should show information for a single container. Otherwise, the person who is looking at the results gets the impression that he has to fix all these issues. This is something that they can improve."
"The licensing model isn't flexible enough. It's an all-or-nothing model. Other providers in the market allow you to buy modules or add-ons separately. With Prisma Access, you have to purchase the same module for all users."
"It's not really Prisma's fault, but when you try to create exceptions you don't really have those abilities. You cannot say, on the management platform, "Hey, for these users I want to create these exceptions." That is one thing that I have gotten some complaints about, and we have faced some challenges there."
"I would like to see better pricing and an easier logging process. Also, if there was a way to log a global log, everything could go onto the system. It would be better if there was a third log, otherwise one would have to do everything manually."
"We've run into some challenges, having hit a lot of bugs over the past year in the deployment of GlobalProtect. We've had our fair share of issues that I haven't been happy with. We're working with the support organization to remediate them and waiting for updated releases. The response on getting the bugs fixed has not been what I would consider adequate for a product like this."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required. The solution's price should be lowered."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 6th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 60 reviews while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 5th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 55 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point Remote Access VPN writes "Is easy to use and has a nice interface, but the scalability needs to improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Check Point Harmony Mobile, Fortinet FortiClient and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, whereas Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Netskope , Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Prisma SD-WAN. See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks report.
See our list of best Enterprise Infrastructure VPN vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Infrastructure VPN 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.
