We performed a comparison between Check Point Application Control and WatchGuard Application Control based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Control solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."They have an excellent support team. They are fast and it is easy to escalate any situation."
"The ability to be able to do dynamic rate limiting on specific applications has been a valuable feature."
"Its implementation is simple."
"The central management system provides a reliable platform for application control and URL filtering."
"The best value we have is their actionable reports on user analytics, events, and activity that are extracted from their database."
"We can control bandwidth and high-risk application access from our network using application control."
"With Check Point Application Control we can say we improved our legacy and have made them more secure. Now we are able to allow specific applications on respective service and we are allowed those respective services only."
"The overall security of the environment has been greatly improved by the Check Point NGFWs. Before implementing the Check Point solutions, we relied on the Cisco ACLs and Zone-Based firewalls configured on the switches and routers, which in fact a simple stateful firewall, and currently appear to be not an efficient solution for protecting from the advanced threats."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is traffic management."
"Zero-trust and threat-hunting services are most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the category control."
"We have witnessed an ROI as it has helped with security measures."
"I found several features valuable in WatchGuard Application Control such as the HTTP Proxy, DNSWatch, VPN, and HTTPS Content Inspection."
"It does the job of what it says it does. We set it to what we want it to block and then it blocks it."
"Centralization is a crucial feature for me as it allows me to have all sites and customers accessible under a single click, not limited to just one."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any problems with stability. Once a year we do a reboot just as a precaution. The solution never stops running otherwise."
"Custom applications for internal applications must be defined frequently."
"One of our continued challenges is having a more accurate, real-time view of how our bandwidth is actually being used at any given moment."
"The whitelisting approach should only be on very specific applications. In which only a server should access a certain application and nothing else. If you miss something, you will have to always be investigating why it doesn't have access or why an application is not working."
"Check Point licenses are somewhat expensive."
"There are many aspects we do not like about the solution and there are a lot of alternatives available on the market. Some of the settings are buried deep within the solution making it a challenge to navigate. It would be helpful if it was more intuitive. Additionally, there can be some settings that are in multiple places, this leaves the user not knowing what settings are needed to be modified for the wanted result. I have lost confidence because I do not know if I change a setting or if it is going to have the desired result I intended it to do."
"I think that the pricing for the Check Point products should be reconsidered - we found it to be quite expensive to purchase and to maintain (the licenses and the support services need to be prolonged regularly), or create some additional bundles of the software blades with significant discounts in addition to the current Next Generation Threat Prevention & SandBlast (NGTX) and Next Generation Threat Prevention (NGTP) offers."
"Check Point is a fairly complete security vendor, however we would like to have a better SLA for technical support issues."
"I recommend network upgrades in the next release to meet most company demands and daily changes."
"There is no message displayed for the user on the desktop informing them that access to a web page has been blocked by Application Control."
"The time they take to classify an application once they find that it is unknown can be better."
"What could be improved in WatchGuard Application Control is its price. It could be cheaper. You always want the best price for any solution, but for security products, pricing is usually on the higher side."
"They could expand the amount of applications that are on the list, but it's pretty intensive anyway, so it's pretty good."
"The control software is currently only available for Windows, which can be a little annoying for Linux users."
"I believe there is room for improvement in policies, with the potential to enhance the margins further."
"The solution needs to improve the interface. I'm not able to easily find things using it."
"There should be more reports available on different subjects."
More Check Point Application Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WatchGuard Application Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Application Control is ranked 2nd in Application Control with 34 reviews while WatchGuard Application Control is ranked 5th in Application Control with 9 reviews. Check Point Application Control is rated 8.8, while WatchGuard Application Control is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point Application Control writes "Reliable, reduces management requirements, and lessens manual interventions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Application Control writes "Reliable with good blocking capabilities for enhanced security". Check Point Application Control is most compared with , whereas WatchGuard Application Control is most compared with . See our Check Point Application Control vs. WatchGuard Application Control report.
See our list of best Application Control vendors.
We monitor all Application Control 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.