We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and OPNsense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point NGFW is highly regarded for its extensive security functions, centralized control, and ability to virtualize. OPNsense is appreciated for its ability to scale, provide guest access, offer user-friendly dashboards, and provide a free version for users. Check Point NGFW needs enhancements in integration, hardware upgrades, cost, stability, load balancing, technical support, and reporting capabilities. OPNsense, on the other hand, requires improvements in its interface, bandwidth management, multi-provider internet protection, integration with Azure, a timeline for new features and updates, IPS solution, reporting capabilities, SSL inspection, and learning curve.
Service and Support: The service for Check Point NGFW has varying feedback, with certain customers appreciating its assistance and quick response, while others believe there is room for improvement. OPNsense boasts an exceptional community support network, although a few users encounter challenges in directly accessing support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Check Point NGFW can be complex and challenging, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the product. It requires expertise and experience for certain configurations and migrations. The initial setup of OPNsense is described as straightforward and easy, even for clients without IT experience. It can be completed within a few hours, with slight variations depending on individual circumstances.
Pricing: The cost of setting up Check Point NGFW is deemed to be expensive, whereas OPNsense falls into the moderate range. Check Point provides flexible licensing choices, although some individuals find the procedure complex. OPNsense is a license-free open-source solution. In addition to the basic expenses, OPNsense requires additional costs for hardware, installation, and training.
ROI: Check Point NGFW provides cost savings, simplicity, and reliable security enforcement, resulting in a favorable return on investment. OPNsense achieves a return on investment in less than three months and eliminates recurring fees.
Comparison Results: Check Point NGFW is the preferred choice over OPNsense. Users appreciate its comprehensive security features, centralized management, and virtualization capabilities. It is known for its stability, ease of use, and scalability. Check Point NGFW is considered worth the price due to its superior security and reliability.
"The web filtering feature and the intrusion protection system are the most valuable. It is a resilient appliance. I never had an issue with it in terms of any security breaches."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is URL filtering."
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the different types of profiling. It has been the most effective for me. The WAF and the antivirus profile are the most effective in network protection."
"Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory."
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"Apart from it having very good features, I personally like the vulnerability assistance via report management which detects host and network vulnerability."
"It provides end-to-end resolution."
"The product offers a robust and intuitive experience, catering to the essential needs of users."
"It also gives us a single console for everything. Rather than having one device for URL filtering and a different device as a firewall, this gives us everything in one place."
"We can easily check firewall configurations against any compliance standard."
"The logging and central policy management are the most valuable aspects for us as we were not having success earlier with the ASA in terms of upgrading/managing."
"Provides very good performance."
"The scalability is very good."
"The most valuable features are reporting, the Sensei plugin, and firewall capabilities."
"What I like best about OPNsense is that, as a firewall, it's pretty good. I'm quite impressed with it. I had an excellent experience with OPNsense, which helped me achieve the targets I wanted."
"It's open source."
"The system in general is quite flexible."
"URL blocking, Wireguard, Tail Scale, Engine Blocker, and VPN are the most valuable features for me."
"I have found the solution has some great features overall, such as guest access capabilities, dashboards, and ease of use. There is plenty of documentation and support and it has the plugins that I needed."
"The solution has high availability."
"The most valuable feature is the Dual WAN in OPNSense, which offers advanced capabilities."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"A couple of things I've seen that need improvement, especially in terms of a hard coding. The driver-level active moment really is out-of-the-box and we have to have contact the customer support and sometimes it is difficult to resolve."
"The visibility of the network can be better. The GUI can be improved for better visibility of the network flow. Other solutions have better GUI in terms of network visibility."
"There are some license issues. Not every feature must have a separate license. There must be some of kind synergy between the license so we don't have to pay for every individual license that we would like to have."
"The UI could be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve if it had a cloud-managed solution."
"The pricing could be reduced or include the first year warranty."
"The product or services can be improved from the cost and the pricing perspective."
"Of the areas of improvement that I want to see in this product, without a doubt, one is the technical support. In this time of globalization, with so many cyberattacks and risks, the Check Point support staff take a long time to attend to incidents due to the high demand."
"Although there is a lot of automation and pattern that can be classified automatically, the IPS systems are sometimes a little bit complicated, and doing the fine-tuning in over 20,000 patterns is hard to do."
"Currently, upgrades are quite cumbersome."
"It could be more stable and scalable. Check Point price and support could be better."
"The complexity involved in the solution's initial setup phase and deployment process is an area of concern where improvement is required."
"The product could provide an easier user interface and management, by combining all functions (network and policy configuration) into one single application rather than split it into different applications."
"Stability issues. I built out this firewall in a cluster, and I had stability issues day one. Needs to be rebooted frequently. Tunnels need to be bounced frequently. Their hardware compatibility guide, when I built out the servers to host them on, was not accurate."
"I would like better documentation concerning the provided packages and their integration."
"There are a few weaknesses. For example, there is a lack of some features that I have in certain commercial products."
"They should improve IPEs for security in the future."
"OPNsense showed me some problems when using it in different environments. The problem is integration with a virtual server."
"OPNsense could improve by making the configuration more web-based rather than shell or command-line-based."
"There are issues with stability and reliability."
"There are some add-ons that need enhancements to make management easier for users, especially the reporting features. Some reports don't show the level of detail I'm looking for, and I've had trouble installing certain add-ons, especially for Internet bandwidth shaping within my company."
"I think the most important thing is that it should be easily accessible, but currently, that doesn't seem to be the case. We need a hardware platform that's based on common standards and open computing principles, which would be like a commodity and benefit us greatly."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 reviews while OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while OPNsense is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and Juniper SRX Series Firewall, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and KerioControl. See our Check Point NGFW vs. OPNsense report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
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.
