We performed a comparison between Check Point Security Management and Digital Guardian based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The compliance is great."
"Check Point Security Management has a great feature that allows you to automate the request of the automated server."
"The management API is the best new feature for me. It allows us to further automate our customers' automated server ordering."
"The cluster solution made our job easier any fault to the device will not halt entire internet connectivity."
"Each department can easily share data with the management without fear of data compromise."
"Having the possibility to use Smart Event to check for threats on a broader scale helps after a security incident and also makes it easier to check - instead of looking through different logs."
"I love the URL filtering as well as the identification capabilities which link with the Active Directory and work for me even with bandwidth regulation. These allow me to select to whom to do what, and when."
"The SSL VPN monitoring based on users and tunnel monitoring are great value-added features present in the management console."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"It has been scalable."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"In order to work management console, you need some good appliance or you need to provide more CPU and Memory to the appliance."
"It would be helpful if the documentation and good practice guides are updated. Many are still from R77."
"It would be great if the SmartView Monitor could become integrated into the SmartView Console Platform."
"I would like the ability to have an overview, cross-site: One portal that does all firewalls. Also, the user interface is overly complicated."
"I like that the Compliance software blade is available for free with the Security Management server purchase, but it is free for only one year - after that you have to buy an additional license to continue using it. I think such an important feature is vital for the management server, and should not be licensed separately."
"Some of the configuration elements could be improved."
"The graphical interface is nice but it is a bit heavy."
"We sometimes have trouble with the performance of the solution. Maybe some performance tuning options could be added in a future release. There should be more visibility about which blade in your firewall is causing the latency."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
More Check Point Security Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Security Management is ranked 13th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 55 reviews while Digital Guardian is ranked 19th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 11 reviews. Check Point Security Management is rated 8.8, while Digital Guardian is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Check Point Security Management writes "Great DDoS protection, high availability, and useful firewall rule implementation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". Check Point Security Management is most compared with Wazuh, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, IBM Security QRadar, LogRhythm SIEM and Splunk Cloud Platform, whereas Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Check Point Security Management vs. Digital Guardian report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.