We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Meraki MX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Threat Management (UTM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful."
"I really like the captive portal feature for our guest network. It has nice VLAN features in terms of separating our network. The anti-virus is also good."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The security on offer is very good."
"FortiGate Secure SD-WAN includes best-of-breed next-generation firewall (NGFW) security, SD-WAN, advanced routing, and WAN optimization capabilities, delivering a security-driven networking WAN edge transformation in a unified offering."
"I appreciate FortiGate's flexibility, which allows for centralized management through FortiManager."
"From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"I'm pretty happy with its reliability. It is also very scalable."
"Check Point has strong security features as well as some decent monitoring and management capabilities."
"We like the way it protects our network, how easy it is to see and filter logs, and how easy it is to manage next-generation firewall policies."
"It's really simple to set up."
"Everything is easily managed through their Smart Console dashboard. It's a very easy-to-understand dashboard that provides a detailed view."
"It is easy to administrate and maintain."
"The sales, pre-sales, professional services, and tech support are all very nice."
"The Network Address Translation (NAT) will always be a valuable feature as it allows me to turn my private cloud to the public at the click of a button and have secure control over the accessible servers/applications."
"The SmartView monitor and SmartReporter help us to monitor and report on traffic."
"We work also with domain control (DC) from Microsoft or Amazon. We use a whole virtual appliance with Meraki."
"The internet traffic shaping has been very valuable."
"The most valuable feature is that we didn't have any problems with Meraki MX."
"It is very easy to use and manage. It is also very easy to scale."
"What I like best about Meraki MX is that it's easy to deploy remotely. The product works. It has automatic updates. I also like that Meraki MX is a brilliant device. You turn it on, stick the key in there, activate it, and then you're done. Meraki MX does what my customers need at the end of the day, so I also like that."
"I use Meraki in my POCs and with my customers as well."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"The dashboard is very intuitive and easy to understand."
"The initial setup and configuration are not intuitive and require training."
"To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"One of the features that I would like to have is to do with endpoint production, it should be integrated. For example, the firewall gets notified of any kind of forensic event that needs to be done, such as if there is a ransomware attack and how it originated, all those records have to be available from the firewall, which is not."
"I would like to have logs, monitoring, and reporting for a month without extra fees."
"The scalability could be better."
"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."
"The smart consoles could be improved."
"Check Point should include additional management choices; for example, Check Point does not offer full management support via browser."
"Sometimes when they bring on new upgrades, they affect something else."
"All the advanced features of automation, especially the first installation of tunnels, need improvement."
"Right now, with a larger user database and a high number of rules, it takes a bit of time for policy installation."
"IoT should be considered in future development."
"One area that they should prioritize is enhancing security gateways for protection against cyberattacks."
"Internet load balancing provides either active/passive or active/active load balancing, however, I would like to see more options that provide SD-WAN capabilities while also allowing for more than two links."
"The security is not as strong as it could be"
"The problem is that the two licenses do not currently integrate. We have to create separate companies and do an interconnection."
"We can’t access GUI management and CLI opening features when the Internet is unavailable."
"The product is quite complex to set up."
"The IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, can be improved."
"From the improvement perspective, we need more monitoring capabilities. We want to have full-based access visibility, such as, what is happening when something is trying to reach and it is denying. We cannot see some parts of it. The integration of active directory with this product is not very fruitful. It has some bugs or lacks in the functionality of active directory integration. We are unable to identify where exactly and whether it has really applied our policy."
"It would be nice to get detailed logging information without third-party software."
"Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts. The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 279 reviews while Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 59 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Meraki MX is rated 8.2. 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 Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Juniper SRX Series Firewall. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Meraki MX report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) 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.