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)
4th
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)
34th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (29th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (32nd), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Check Point SandBlast Network is 3.4%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Check Point SandBlast Network3.4%
MetaDefender1.2%
Other95.4%
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

"Preventing zero-day threats and extracting potential threats from incoming files with Threat Extraction is the most valuable feature for us."
"The most efficient and protective characteristics of Check Point's SandBlast solution are that we can see a lot of this protection at the network and mail levels."
"It looks out for new cyber ​​threats and generates predictions based on behaviors that are already detected on a daily basis."
"In terms of the scalability, it's expandable across the cloud."
"The zero-day protection is its most valuable feature."
"SandBlast updates the threat signatures frequently."
"It seems like it works all the time. We have never had an issue. We have never had something go undetected, anything major. All in all, it works pretty well."
"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."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"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."
 

Cons

"Using it in the beginning was difficult because I had never used anything similar. In terms of navigating the UI, it was all not too bad, but there is definitely a learning curve."
"The file types that can be scanned are limited, which means that if the file type is not listed or enabled for the sandbox, they are bypassed and it can lead to a security issue."
"In Check Point SandBlast, improvement has to be made with respect to the GUI."
"Using it in the beginning was difficult because I had never used anything similar. In terms of navigating the UI, it was all not too bad, but there is definitely a learning curve."
"The cost is a little bit high-end, and you need to get precise performance metrics in order to get the correct size. Improvements are required in both areas of the tool."
"I am very leery right now about the stability. We've had three outages in the last month because of Check Point, not because of something that the customer has done, but because of changes on the Check Point side."
"SandBlast takes longer than FortiSandbox to complete a scan."
"The knowledge base of Check Point SandBlast Network contains some confusing context, which might be confusing while configuring and designing."
"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 cost is not significantly high and it can be negotiated during any purchase of NGFW."
"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."
"Choosing the correct set of licenses is essential because, without the additional software blade licenses, the Check Point gateways are just a stateful firewall."
"The cost of Check Point SandBlast Network is annually, and there is only a standard license."
"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."
"I think the overall cost for introducing Check Point with SandBlast was reasonable and competitive in the market."
"The product's cost is high."
"We have seen ROI."
"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.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Marketing Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
6%
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MetaDefender?
The pricing of MetaDefender is about hundreds of dollars. If I remember correctly, when someone attempted to buy from us one instance of OPSWAT, it was about nine thousand dollars for multi-scannin...
What needs improvement with MetaDefender?
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 MetaD...
What is your primary use case for MetaDefender?
I have used MetaDefender for one and a half years, deploying it in different environments and managing a team of professional services that deploy MetaDefender products in customer environments. I ...
 

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 Check Point SandBlast Network vs. MetaDefender and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.