We performed a comparison between Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"You can create multiple Virtual Domains (VDOMs), which are treated as separate firewall instances."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use."
"Customers want to load balance more than eight lines or six internet lines. FortiGate is the only solution that can accomplish this."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are it is one of the most mature firewalls in the UTM bundle."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"Initial setup is easy to configure."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ability to work in proxy mode, which other solutions, such as Palo Alto cannot. There are some features that are better that come at no extra license or subscriptions cost, such as basic SD-WAN. The DLT is useful, other solutions have the same feature too, such as Palo Alto."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"The most valuable feature for us was to implement negligent functionality, to direct functionality to viewer control and application control so we could disconnect, and at the same time, we installed checkpoints. We disconnected our proxy."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"The filtering was very good."
"The solution has plenty of features."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten since we never faced any issues."
"The solution is scalable."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"I love the idea of Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It's more geared toward preventing malware. If someone's laptop or phone is malware-infected, the tool prevents it from uploading valuable corporate data outside the corporate network. That's what I love about Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It stops malware in its tracks."
"I give the initial setup an eight out of ten."
"A good tool for file scanning and email threat detection, especially when it comes to attachments and communications."
"Lacks training for new features."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"In some cases, its initial setup could be hard for customers."
"The search tool needs improvement. It's very difficult to search for policies right now."
"They sometimes hide some features and if you want to enable them, you have to go in the CLI, enable the feature and configure it through the CLI. Customers, typically, like everything to be done by the GUI."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"What has been the issue of firewalls is they ask me for policies and content filtering application control and all these features that are now part of Harmony."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"As we don't have a representative of Check Point in Mozambique, this makes it very difficult when we have some issues to resolve."
"The interface needs improvement."
"The solution could be improved if there was a better way to report. The reporting functionality is not really good. Even though it's not the major function. Maybe adding a way to make a custom report."
"Specifically on the user experience, sometimes the set up of things, such as the VPN SSL, takes a lot of time to load and a lot of time to get up and running on every session."
"Technical support was very bad because the supplier who sold it to us, wasn't very supportive, and he wouldn't giving us direct links to the OEM."
"The initial setup was a little bit complex, mainly due to the GUI console and management challenges."
"The system performance degrades after the solution has been deployed for some time. The data that it gives us becomes a little bit slow. When you try to get some data for troubleshooting, it seems like it's working hard to extract that data."
"As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity."
"Our main concern is that everything has to be synced with the WildFire Cloud and has to be checked through the subscription."
"The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow."
"The price of WildFire should be reduced in order to make it more affordable for our customers."
"I would like to see them continue on their developmental roadmap for the product."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker."
Earn 20 points
Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] writes "Great firewalls, VPN, and Intrusion prevention capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Check Point SandBlast Network.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
Are you limiting the results are a specific reason?
The larger question here is what do they need? There is no one best, each one has a good pro and con list to compare. (do they need web filtering, geo ip blocking, layer 7 filtering, detail qos control, redundant link fail over, load balancing, client access, reports, automated reports, etc) There are a lot of open questions that can help anyone tailor what would be best to use.
My personal experience with those mentioned is to go with Palo Alto. It has a good rock solid and stable OS and can be configured to most anything your client would need.
Fortinet's: The OS has many issues with memory even when you over spec the unit. You will find yourself having to restart it pretty often. It does have a decent configuration gui. (My personal opinion unless it's a OS/Firmware upgrade the unit should never need rebooted).
Check Point: At least the units I have had the wonderful time working with, have been very "finicky", granted the last one I seen was about two years ago now, which imo is a good thing. I was not impressed.
Firewalls I did not see mentioned Cisco ASA/Firepower, Cisco Meraki, SonicWall, PFSense, Adtran.
I do like the Cisco Units, though not for the faint of heart. Even the new ones you will find yourself in the shell often. That said there is a reason that most Datacenters use them, they have been around a long time and know how to build a good product.
Meraki: These have surprised me. They are as good as the Palo Alto FWs and the recent (time is relative) acquisition of OpenDNS/Umbrella into their security stack is a good blend. Easy to configure, A good option if the client will be in the FW making changes. When Paired with other Meraki units the Single Pane of Glass configuration is a plus. The Reporting is a nice feature with the ability to alert on. The Layer 7 Filtering and QOS is super well thought out. Really, really easy to configure. I can walk most anyone through a setup.
SonicWall: Just mentioning their name gives me headaches. Even after Dell purchased them the product isn't any better again just my opinion. They are easy to setup, and that is all I will give them.
PFSense: I love OpenSource products, PFSense has a good plugin list and is easy to make your own. It is not for everyone. The recent last few firmware/OS upgrades introduced a better gui interface. Rock Solid (as long as you have good hardware.) They just work. You will however need to know the product well. Some configuration places can be confusing. Such as setting up Traffic Shaping is not as simple as in the others, "in a click of a button".
Adtran: Adtran does not get mentioned enough. These units are good and do exactly what they are told. Never have to be rebooted unless you upgrading the firmware/os on the units. They are fast and as the phrase goes "they just work". The GUI is still a little dated when compared to others in the market, Once you get use to it though your golden. The Shell is near identical to the Cisco, so for Cisco guys it's an easy go between. They started out as a Voice vendor product, as you know voice is never allowed to go down and that is how their switches, routers, etc are.
So to recap: It depends on what you want to do.
In your original list, The Palo Alto is the winner.
If you want to Expand it to the larger list I would say the Meraki if you want a good gui experience and support.
If you just want it to work with a ton of no extra cost add-ons the PFSense is the next option if you're willing to put the effort into learning it inside and out, which only the hardcore guys seem to do.
I have worked on PA, CP, & Fortinet. I found Fortinet to be the most capable and best common interface for overall usage. As stated above, I found PA's to be overpriced for what they give you. Based on my monitoring this sector, CP & PA are trying ot catch up to Fortinet's and Cisco's ecosystem approaches. Cisco's Ecosystem, since I brought it up, still requires a user to know too many different interfaces and leads to configuration issues.
My recommendation is Fortinet.
I have experience is all flavors mentioned here.
If you are thinking about the cost of the product , then go with Fortinet. Fortinet products are cheep when compare to PA or Checkpoint. Whereas the performance of the box is not mentioned on the datasheet. You have to rethink the value based real world traffic.
For stable network m opinion is PA or checkpoint. Both devices have certain their own features which may not be replace by other device.
I would you to consult with the SE who can understand your requirement and unique features required to your organization.
my opinión : i think all vendors in security are great but i prefer FORTINET
My opinion about firewalls --> FORTI (FortiGate) is the best out of those 3:Fortinet, Palo Alto, Check Point.
Why? 1. Price (TCO), 2. Wide and complex functionality, 3. More userfriendly interface than ChPoint. Check Point is too expensive (my private opinion) compared with its functionality (the brand costs).
I haven’t got any experience with Palo Alto.
Having worked for Nokia and Check Point for eight years as a Senior S.E., and SonicWALL, and also being very familiar with Palo, Fortinet, Cisco & Sophos, I'd say it all comes to the customer's requirements.
When I was Director of Engineering at Intel for their FW/VPN, I asked marketing for the numbers of how much of our customer base was using the FW component of our product which was called and marketed a VPN. An astounding 48 per cent used the FW. I immediately had our gateway rebranded "Intel FW/VPN".
According to IDC we were number 2 of market share at 14% behind Bottle at 20%.
Unfortunately Intel bought our product as a "BB" (buy and bury). They took our code and put it on an ASIC chip and stamped it onto their NICks (network interface cards).
Being the director of engineering I was responsible for a good portion of that.
I can support on Fortinet Firewalls and its integration.
Best is subjective and I think there are many factors that could influence a decision.
Fortinet are generally less expensive but I have found their management and product splintering to be cumbersome, support is hit and miss and depends on the partner you work with. That said if you are on a budget it could be a good choice.
Palo have a good management platform, excellent firewalls and with the release of their new firewalls (820/50) have some cost effective solutions at the lower end, support is very good.
Checkpoint have a very good management platform, average firewalls with sometimes over complex configuration and from experience I would have to say awful support.
As always I would try to figure out what requirements and capabilities you are looking for, where the strengths and weaknesses of your security team lie and work from there. The solution should be built to fit your business requirements and budget.