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

Check Point Security Management vs ThreatStryker 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 Security Manage...
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
69
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (8th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (11th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (6th)
ThreatStryker
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (100th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (42nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Check Point Security Management is designed for Log Management and holds a mindshare of 0.5%, down 0.5% compared to last year.
ThreatStryker, on the other hand, focuses on Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP), holds 0.1% mindshare, up 0.0% since last year.
Log Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point Security Management0.5%
Wazuh12.2%
Grafana Loki7.9%
Other79.4%
Log Management
Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
ThreatStryker0.1%
Wiz23.4%
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks14.5%
Other62.0%
Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2751156 - PeerSpot reviewer
Years of using the solution significantly improve log management and troubleshooting efficiency
Check Point Security Management has positively impacted my organization because, after migrating from our previous firewall, a Cisco ASA, we were able to see what traffic was passing through the firewall and from that, build out least access privilege firewall rules. So only what's actually needed by the organization is being let through. The rest is being dropped. The measurable outcomes with Check Point Security Management show that the troubleshooting is definitely quicker. Now it just takes a few minutes to find out where the error is and resolve it. Before, it was at least an hour or two of troubleshooting to locate the issue.
Use ThreatStryker?
Share your opinion
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Log Management solutions are best for your needs.
868,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business36
Midsize Enterprise29
Large Enterprise41
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Check Point Security Management?
The most beneficial features for us are the alert classifications, which help us prioritize critical issues, and the detailed reports that provide insights into attack origins and purposes, such as...
What needs improvement with Check Point Security Management?
The needed improvements in Check Point Security Management depend very much on the customer's infrastructure. For example, an appliance has an easier time than someone with VMs. With VMs, there can...
What is your primary use case for Check Point Security Management?
My main use case for Check Point Security Management is to troubleshoot or add policy, depending on the situation. It could be both, but mainly troubleshooting. We go and take care of the customer'...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

R80.10, R80, R77.30, R77, Check Point R80.10 Security Management, R80 Security Management
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hedgetec, Geiger
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Wazuh, Splunk, Grafana Labs and others in Log Management. Updated: August 2025.
868,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.