We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls based on our users’ reviews in four categories. Our conclusion is presented below.
Comparison Results: Our users feel Check Point NGFW is the better choice for NG Firewalls. Users appreciate its unique multi-layer, multi-blade approach. Additionally, the central management station allows users to manage everything in one place, helping to improve overall performance. The great price, support, and performance make this a great choice.
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"The reporting you receive out of this appliance is excellent. You will not need an external management system."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"We are a visual effects company, and there have been a number of high profile security issues in our industry. This has brought us to a higher standard of security, which our clients are very keen on these days."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"FortiGate has a very strong unified threat management system."
"Some of the most valuable features are URL filtering, web filtering, and content filtering."
"The way in which it manages the nodes within a cluster architecture is excellent, offering fault tolerance which is, in my experience, practically imperceptible when one of the nodes fails."
"The Blades work fine and the performance optimization is great."
"The solution offers a good GUI."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The features that are important include: IPS, sandbox, SandBlast, Anti-Bot, and URL filtering."
"The VPN tunnels are very effective in terms of stability and quick connection."
"SmartCenter and SmartLog are the best platforms to manage firewall rules. SandBlast Zero-Day is very useful when encountering any security leaks."
"There are many valuable features, such as wireless cloud features."
"The technical support is great."
"One of the most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is application symmetries."
"Prisma Access is the most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls."
"The performance of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the network protection."
"The solution does a great job of identifying malicious items and vulnerabilities with URL filtering."
"It is an extremely powerful solution as it provides visibility into all the network traffic, and offers a range of actions such as blocking websites or graphics, as well as load balancing. It's a great tool."
"Backup can be improved."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"The reporting in Fortinet FortiGate could improve. Customers are having to purchase additional reporting components. When I have used the Sophos solution it is a complete solution, in Fortinet FortiGate you have to use additional tools to have the features needed."
"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."
"The Wi-Fi controller needs a lot of improvement."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"Technical support for this solution can be improved."
"The price is middling. It's much more expensive than Fortinet, although not so expensive when compared with Palo Alto."
"It's too expensive for mid-market companies."
"I have had some issues in the past with the desktop client being slow to come up for logging in, and then slow to respond to screen changes, however, overall, it really hasn't been too bad."
"I primarily work on the network side, so my expertise lies in configuring and working with firewalls. I have experience in firewall policies and know how to configure them within CheckPoint, including blocking URLs and specific website categories. However, I acknowledge that there's room for improvement, particularly in areas related to application-level control within the firewall. While I can't pinpoint a specific area for improvement, I am trying open to enhancing my skills and knowledge in various aspects of firewall management."
"Pricing needs to be lowered from start, this would be more effective than lowering it during negotiations."
"The tool’s architecture could be improved a bit."
"They could make the licensing a bit easier to deal with, especially for enterprise-level options."
"SmartEvent Settings and Policy GUI, and the rest of external apps should be improved."
"The biggest thing that needs to be improved with them is their training. I took a training class for the 8.0 build, then I took it again for the 9.0 and 10 builds. They add new features every time that they do a new major release, but the training doesn't keep up. It is the same basic training that probably was with the 3.0 build, and they just change the screenshots. I would love to see them do some more work since they have all these bells and whistles, but we don't know how to use those features on a large scale."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls need better training modules. You have to do a lot of reading prior to watching the training videos, and it's good for people who are really into it. However, often you want to use a video for a TID. You want to see how to do something rather than spend 30 minutes reading and then another 30 minutes watching the class. As a result, I take third-party training classes rather than Palo Alto's training because they are a lot better."
"The whole performance takes a long time. It takes a long time to configure."
"The solution needs some management tool enhancements. It could also use more reporting tools."
"Everything has been great. More machine learning would be something great to see, but I don't know if it's a priority for Palo Alto."
"The support could be improved. Palo Alto does not have a support team located in Bangladesh, and their support team operates from another location. Therefore, when we raise a ticket, it takes some time for them to respond, which can be problematic for us."
"The performance of the Panorama interface needs to be improved. It tends to be very sluggish at times."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 279 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 164 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. 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 Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Azure Firewall and OPNsense, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.
Hi, I would suggest going for Checkpoint, the suitability depends on your specific security needs, budget constraints, network infrastructure, Integration capabilities, cloud integration, compliance and reporting, user-friendly interface but the support and the specific behavior for some solutions for routing, networking balance or specific connectivity is better known constraints, Checkpoint Multiplatform support (Open Servers Solutions) The advantages in Palo Alto (SSL Decryption, Wildfire SandBox Integration, Scalability)
Hi, I would suggest going for Check Point.
I'm with Check Point now, for more than 2 years. IPS, threat prevention, antibot identification, and antivirus notification are up to the mark. Moreover, it has a friendly user interface where anyone can create policies and work on it.