We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and TeamViewer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Remote Access solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."For a basic setup, implementation is quite easy."
"The team has full visibility of the users that connect allowing them to keep control of who is in the network and what data they are allowing to come in and out."
"I like the fact that Remote Access allows the administrator to control and manage things. It makes things smoother, and it has been an excellent experience."
"Technical support has been excellent."
"The policies are easy to use."
"We can integrate remote access to our branches through Check Point services."
"The solution implemented in the cloud allows us to easily scale in cases of user increase."
"Setup using the manuals was easy."
"TeamViewer is fast and easy to manipulate."
"TeamViewer has a lot of options for deploying the Hosts, where you can mass deploy them very easily, and you can pre-configure them."
"TeamViewer allows us to do multiple controllers on a Host, which is great. We have a lot of Macs in our organization, and TeamViewer being cross-platform is a good thing."
"The most valuable features of I use TeamViewer are the ease of access and frequent updates."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is the remote access connection. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"We also use it a lot for remote site assistance. We've set up our internal authentication for unattended access to our remote sites. That makes it very easy and convenient to remotely connect with our users and our client machines whenever we need to. It's set as a direct, secure connection. As long as the station has internet access, we can see it and it makes remote support very simple."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is user-friendliness."
"The most valuable features of TeamViewer are the ease of connecting to remote computers. I do not need a lot of information about their computers to connect, a nontechnical person can give me the information needed for me to connect. Additionally, the solution does not gather other system information about the host or client's systems as other solutions might, such as AnyDesk."
"Sometimes we have some small problems with Check Point Remote Access VPN. For example, problems with authentication."
"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."
"We are very happy with the Windows client. You log in with the VPN for the full client, you do the log in there. But for Linux machines, they don't have a full client to install. It is important because we have some users that use Linux and they don't have a specific application from Check Point to use. That is something that could be improved."
"Compliance Check on Check Point should be improved by having more configurable conditions to support multi-platforms and adding more granularity."
"For Linux machines, they don't have a full client to install. For the users that utilize Linux, there needs to be an equivalent."
"The client-side UI is fundamental, and there is nothing to see."
"I cannot see the full effect of the endpoint solution because it relies on having access to the DNF queries, which might not go through the Check Point firewall when you're using it for perimeter networks. Check Point will not identify the actual source of the net queries. This may be related to the architecture, however, and not poor product issues. I don't know if it can be improved on the Check Point side or not."
"A characteristic to improve is the communication service under the SMTP scheme."
"The file transfer functionality crashes sometimes."
"There is a paid version of this solution with more features available. However, they should provide more free features to the user, such as factor authentication."
"They could give more information about using certain kinds of applications for secure transactions, such as secure file transfers."
"The support could improve their speed."
"TeamViewer is expensive, and you get a limited number of connections for your money."
"This solution could be improved by offering more flexibility in terms of usage."
"The solution could improve by increasing or removing the time limitation on the use of a session."
"We have a consultant that helps us do the virtual aspects of TeamViewer."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 5th in Remote Access with 62 reviews while TeamViewer is ranked 1st in Remote Access with 85 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while TeamViewer is rated 8.6. 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 TeamViewer writes "Solid cross-platform remote control, but with kludgy central management and some serious feature issues on macOS". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Fortinet FortiClient, Check Point Harmony Mobile and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, whereas TeamViewer is most compared with TeamViewer Tensor, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Parallels Access, ISL Online and Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service). See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. TeamViewer report.
See our list of best Remote Access vendors.
We monitor all Remote Access 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.