We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and OpenVPN Access Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has good performance."
"It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled."
"The biggest advantage of Check Point Remote Access VPN is that we already use the Check Point firewall. We only needed to enable the feature and do the configuration in order to enable the VPN feature. We didn't need to buy or manage new hardware. This was a big advantage."
"This platform has developed a reliable communication infrastructure that employees can use to communicate with remote workers."
"I found the MEP feature the most valuable. This has improved users' latency allowing the users to connect to the nearest Azure Check Point VM."
"The solution offers high scalability as far as adding more users."
"It offers a simple configuration and setup."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"To maintain the authorization of the connected user, Check Point provides multi-factor authentication for an RA VPN client to make sure legitimate users have access to resources."
"Organizations that already use the Check Point NGFW Solution do not require any additional hardware, which makes the implementation straightforward and reduces the time to go live."
"The compatibility with almost any Linux operating system, and how easy it is to write scripts and generate keys for people to use and log in. I found it easy to deploy quickly."
"It is open source and therefore affordable for small projects."
"OpenVPN Access Server is cheap, and we get to use it ourselves. It is also a stable solution."
"Highly configurable. You can create your own custom client installer and can rebrand the server-side program."
"The setup is easy."
"I have found the stability to be good."
"OpenVPN Access Server is very stable."
"The product provides secure internet connections and helps with faster downloads."
"There must be a more easy-to-use GUI."
"When you want to deploy a new Check Point agent, it is really a pain in the butt. For example, Windows 10 now has updates almost every couple of months. It changes the versioning and things under the hood. These are things that I don't understand, because I'm not a Windows person. However, I know that the Check Point client is installed on the Windows machine, and if the Check Point client's not kept up-to-date, then it's functionality breaks. It has to be up-to-date with the Windows versions. Check Point has to update the client more often. Now, the problem is that the Check Point client is not easy to update on remote computers and it's not easy to deploy a new client."
"The product’s architecture is a bit distributed."
"The Compliance software blade is available only for the Windows operating systems family, so no macOS security checks are implemented and performed."
"In an environment with multiple cluster checkpoints, the global properties common to all clusters in some cases give problems."
"Sometimes the application slows down the computing device, and this affects workflows."
"The maximum it is giving us is only 5 licenses and if you need more, they must be purchased separately."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"The authentication that we handle is through a .p12 certificate, however, we have integrated it with a 2MFA service through another provider. Something that could improve Check Point is if it had its own 2MFA service through a blade or some sort of application."
"It could be faster. It could also be more stable."
"There sometimes is an incompatibility between some VPNs."
"The upgrade path from older versions was more difficult than we wanted to tackle, so we ran an older version of the software for longer than I wanted. Patching, updating, and migrating to newer versions was a problem for us. That said, we were on a rather old version that I inherited yet it worked rock solid."
"The logs should be made easier to read."
"We occasionally have internet issues which affect stability."
"Open VPN Access Server could be more user-friendly."
"If we had to create something for someone who was not necessarily tech savvy, I had to set that up on their computer, I had to write "read me's" and other things so that they could install their client and then connect to the VPN by themselves. So it was hard to set up for people who are not tech savvy."
"It would be nice with all these features, if they could send some examples of each one; just small sample scripts to look at and say, "Oh okay, I could expand on this." That would help us a lot."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 6th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 62 reviews while OpenVPN Access Server is ranked 1st in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 44 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while OpenVPN Access Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point Remote Access VPN writes "Is easy to use and has a nice interface, but the scalability needs to improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenVPN Access Server writes "An easy-to-use tool with which its users can access networks from home or external locations". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Check Point Harmony Mobile, Fortinet FortiClient, Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange and Symantec VIP Access Manager, whereas OpenVPN Access Server is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, SonicWall Netextender and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange. See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. OpenVPN Access Server report.
See our list of best Enterprise Infrastructure VPN vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Infrastructure VPN 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.