We performed a comparison between Azure Firewall and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The inspection and web security features are most valuable."
"The performance is good."
"Customers want to load balance more than eight lines or six internet lines. FortiGate is the only solution that can accomplish this."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"The most useful functionality of Fortinet FortiGate is the user interface, multiple engines, and their cloud with the latest integrations. Additionally, the Security Fabric tool is very good."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and the UI. It has always provided me with what I needed. I have no need for additional costs that other solutions have, such as Sophos."
"The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing."
"All its features are good. That's why we recommend it."
"The solution can autoscale."
"Among the most valuable features are the DDoS protection that protects your virtual machines, the threat intelligence, and traffic filtering."
"The most valuable feature is threat intelligence. It is based on filtering and can identify multiple threats."
"The solution should be capable of self-scaling, which is one of the features we like about it."
"The solution has many useful features. For example, the solution allows users to create virtual IP addresses."
"The SIEM that Azure Firewall provides us is very robust."
"Microsoft's technical support is very good. They're quite knowledgable and responsive."
"The solution is easier to manage than an on-premise firewall. It is easy to manage. The use of dynamic objects for these gateways made it easy to create the right rules and the right policies. Integration with Azure is also easy where we have to just add the subnets. In an on-premise setup, we have to add everything from scratch. We can automate a lot of actions."
"This solution brings us closer to having a better security score, which helps us a lot in complying with information regulations based on security."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized dashboard, which is used for managing all of the Check Point Security Gateways."
"The features of the solution which I have found most valuable are its flexibility and agility. It's a fully scalable solution, from our perspective. We can define scaling groups and, based on the load, it will create new instances. It's truly a product which is oriented toward the cloud mindset, cloud agility, and this is a great feature."
"Check Point has pretty simple solutions, like the virtual appliance which you just download and it is imported into VMware and you just start using it."
"Security effectiveness is the most valuable feature. Operational efficiency, reporting, and support are also good."
"The solution has been quite stable."
"The installation process doesn't take very long."
"There are mainly two areas of improvement in Fortinet FortiGate— the licensing cost and the timing of upgrading licenses for boxes."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"I think there could be more QoS features"
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"It should provide better visibility over the network and more information in the form of reports for the end users. Its installation should also be easier."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"You have to have a defined IP range within your network to associate it with your network. The problem is you have to plan ahead of time if you expect to use the firewall in the future so that you don't have to reconfigure your subnets or that specific IP range. Other than that, I don't any issues. I use it for basic configuration for a single application, so I really don't try to leverage it for multiple applications where I might find some complexity or challenges."
"The interface could be improved, it's not very user friendly."
"The solution doesn't offer the same capabilities of Fortinet. It should offer intrusion prevention and advance filtering. These are two very useful features offered on Fortinet that Azure lacks."
"The reporting, logging, and monitoring features, as well as the flexibility of the policies, need to be improved."
"Right now, with Azure Firewall, we cannot have a normal inbound traffic flow. For inbound, Microsoft suggests using application gateways, so the options are very limited. I cannot use this firewall as an intermediate firewall because of the limitations, and I cannot point routing to another firewall. So if I want to use back-to-back firewall architecture in my environment, I cannot use Azure Firewall for that type of configuration either."
"Azure has new versions including a premium firewall. But I would like to see them not put the premium features on Azure Firewall Premium alone because it is quite expensive."
"The solution lacks artificial intelligence and machine learning. It might be in the roadmap. However, currently, it's not available."
"For larger enterprises, they need to adjust the scalability."
"The cost is relatively high compared to the cost of other products in the market."
"What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America."
"CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases."
"In future releases, I would like to see the data loss prevention (DLP) feature could scale along with the virtual machine scale sets."
"The product needs to improve support. They don't consider my case the number one priority even though I want a quick resolution."
"There is room for improvement in the integration with PaaS services from the public cloud. It would be very helpful."
"It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees."
"The solution could improve to have a DLP feature."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Firewall is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 33 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 121 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.2, while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Firewall writes "Easy to use and configure but could be more robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "Highly reliable, great visibility, and centralized management". Azure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Check Point NGFW, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM and Illumio. See our Azure Firewall vs. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security 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.