Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point SandBlast Network vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point SandBlast Network
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MetaDefender
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (38th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Check Point SandBlast Network is 3.1%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point SandBlast Network3.1%
MetaDefender0.9%
Other96.0%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

MW
Technical Specialist at Softcell Technologies Limited
Comprehensive security solution mitigates advanced threats
Improvements for Check Point SandBlast Network can be seen in dashboard usability; the threat emulation logs and analysis reports could be made more intuitive and visually appealing. Enhancing the system for granular tuning to reduce false positives and allowing benign files to bypass checks more simply for non-expert users would be beneficial. Additionally, faster emulation times could be achieved by increasing file scanning speed through hardware productivity enhancements. A specific instance where file scanning speed posed an issue was when the time taken depended on the file size. Scanning can take less than a minute or up to 2 minutes for larger files. Enhancing the file scanning time would be a significant improvement to the system.
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Check Point SandBlast is best in terms of the extraction function. Customers can get a clean firewall with extraction after I've cleaned and scanned it from Check Point. It's easy for users, too."
"Very few false positives are detected, which gives the confidence to raise flags when needed, ensuring the IT department is aware of threats and acting fast."
"SandBlast Network enhances security by providing advanced threat prevention."
"SandBlast updates the threat signatures frequently."
"One of its characteristics that we liked the most was its analysis and emulation of activities in the emails since it manages to review them and inspect them if they have an infected attachment."
"In terms of the scalability, it's expandable across the cloud."
"Preventing zero-day threats and extracting potential threats from incoming files with Threat Extraction is the most valuable feature for us."
"We didn't really have any IPS before. So, Check Point has improved our security posture. People get used to doing things certain ways, which might not be the best or most secure way, and they can't do that now, which just requires more education of the user base. With the endpoint client, we've started to use Check Point for remote access."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
 

Cons

"I would like if it could emulate bigger files and somehow improve this usability. I don't know if this would be possible. However, if it was able to scan or emulate bigger files, then it would be safer for a company using it."
"We have noticed a slight performance hit when the Threat Emulation and Extraction features were enabled, but the protection trade-off is worth it for us."
"The response times were slower, and getting support personnel on the call was more difficult."
"The management of alerts could improve them a bit - especially in event management."
"I think Check Point provides standard time which ideally most other vendors take to identify behaviors of a file by sending them into a sandbox environment for inspection."
"It has some performance overhead, as sandboxing takes time and real-time delivery depends on threat extraction, requiring high performance."
"The Threat Emulation software blade significantly affects the performance of the NGFWs, we have a significant increase in the CPU and memory consumption."
"When you have to scan emails that come with attachments, it takes a long time to examine them, which causes other emails not to be scanned, which can cause some danger to our organization."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product's cost is high."
"The pricing is quite effective, not excessively high. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the highest price, I rate the pricing a nine."
"We have seen ROI."
"The cost of Check Point SandBlast Network is annually, and there is only a standard license."
"We would like to try the Threat Extraction blade, but you need to buy a license. Check Point is expensive. I would like to buy things, but I would need the funding."
"The cost is not significantly high and it can be negotiated during any purchase of NGFW."
"I think the overall cost for introducing Check Point with SandBlast was reasonable and competitive in the market."
"Choosing the correct set of licenses is essential because, without the additional software blade licenses, the Check Point gateways are just a stateful firewall."
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business31
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Check Point SandBlast Network?
My experience with pricing and setup cost is that pricing was a bit high, but the setup cost was initially justified.
What needs improvement with Check Point SandBlast Network?
I feel that Check Point SandBlast Network could be improved with slight delays in cleaning the file delivery. Additionally, I think it requires proper tuning to avoid unnecessary notifications.
What is your primary use case for Check Point SandBlast Network?
My main use case for Check Point SandBlast Network is advanced threat protection, especially for scanning emails, attachments, web downloads, and incoming files through a sandbox environment. A qui...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edenred, State Transport Leasing Company (STLC), Edel AG, Laurenty, Conseil Départemental du Val de Marne, Koch Media
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.