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.
"FortiGate's web and URL filtering are unlike any other firewall I've used. The functionality of URL filtering in those solutions is problematic because everything is encrypted, and firewalls can't break that encryption protocol. Fortinet has an SSL proxy, so the encryption is done before the packet ever leaves the FortiGate. The URL filter is definitely one of the most helpful features."
"This solution has solid UTM features combined with a nice GUI."
"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 valuable feature is the FortiManager for centralized management."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"LinkGreat firewall capabilities"
"FortiGate firewalls are easy to manage through a user-friendly web interface. They also have advanced features like DDoS and DLP. However, I wouldn't recommend enabling all of these features on one device because it can cause performance issues."
"The IPsec tunnels are very easily created, and quite interoperable with devices from other vendors."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the Quantum Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). I also like the solution's functionality, like autonomous threat prevention."
"The Check Point architecture and packet are very good."
"I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten."
"The product offers a robust and intuitive experience, catering to the essential needs of users."
"The Check Point firewall features for Next Generation Firewalls are excellent."
"Check Point's most useful feature is threat prevention and extraction. It was tough to manage seven firewalls and a perimeter solution for IPS, anti-malware, anti-bot, and sandboxing."
"The features that are important include: IPS, sandbox, SandBlast, Anti-Bot, and URL filtering."
"Objects search and tracker logs are useful."
"It has a unique approach to packet processing. It has single-pass architecture. We can easily perform policy lookups, application decoding, and integration or merging. This can be all done with a single pass. It effectively reduces the amount of processing required to perform multiple actions. This is the main advantage of using Palo Alto."
"This is arguably the best security protection that you can buy."
"The management options are good."
"We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors."
"I can enable the features I want and configure the policies based on the user and not all users and network traffic, making firewall management much easier."
"Most of the features in Palo Alto are very valuable."
"The trackability is most valuable. When a port is open for a protocol, such as port 443 for HTTPS, it can look inside the traffic and identify or verify the applications that are using the port, which was previously not possible with traditional firewalls."
"Application layer firewalling has been the most valuable feature because it gives thousands of application IDs that we can use to control traffic into and out of our environment. The second most important feature has been the GlobalProtect VPN feature."
"Currently, without the additional reporting module, we only have access to basic reporting."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"The support team for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be more customer friendly."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"The central management for the FortiGate Fortinet Firewall needs improvement. They have the manager to do the essential management for both SD-WAN and for the security policy. They should also improve the SD-WAN function."
"FortiGate is really good. We have been using it for quite some time. Initially, when we started off, we had around 70 plus devices of FortiGate, but then Check Point and Palo Alto took over the place. From the product perspective, there are no issues, but from the account perspective, we have had issues. Fortinet's presence in our company is very less. I don't see any Fortinet account managers talking to us, and that presence has diluted in the last two and a half or three years. We have close to 1,500 firewalls. Out of these, 60% of firewalls are from Palo Alto, and a few firewalls are from Check Point. FortiGate firewalls are very less now. It is not because of the product; it is because of the relationship. I don't think they had a good relationship with us, and there was some kind of disconnect for a very long time. The relationship between their accounts team and my leadership team seems to be the reason for phasing out FortiGate."
"The support costs and licensing are sometimes so expensive."
"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."
"For the user or anyone else who is using Check Point, they are more into the GUI stuff. Check Point has its SmartConsole. On the console, you have to log into the MDS or CMS. Then, from there, you have to go onto that particular firewall and put in the changes. If the management console could be integrated onto the GUI itself, that would be one thing that I would recommend."
"The current reporting capability needs to be parsed and edited to be appreciated by leadership."
"The improvement could come from better monitoring of traffic data in and out of the firewall."
"The level and availability of training should be improved."
"Check Point solutions have always been more complex to deploy than their competitors."
"The solution could improve by keeping more up-to-date with technology. For example, if Amazon releases something in the security field, Check Point should have integration or adoption of this feature a bit faster than it is today. Sometimes we can hear a lot of the marketing information about an attractive feature, which we would like to have, but the feature will be released in two years. This timeframe should decrease."
"Support for customers really needs to improve."
"The exterior of the physical device can be improved with the use of a display and not just simple lights."
"The price could be more friendly, which would be good for Palo Alto and us. If the price were a little lower, then it would be a viable option for mid-level businesses, who may not be able to deploy at the current price point."
"I think automation and machine learning can be improved to make bulk configurations simpler, easier, and faster"
"The support could be improved."
"They can improve the handling and management of User-ID. They should also improve its price. Their technical support can also be improved."
"It would be better to have more tools to control Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. We don't have too many tools to access Palo Alto. For example, the IT team doesn't have access to it. We can see it physically and see if it's running or not. We need to contact a special team to receive that information. I would also like to see more reporting in the next release."
"The only problem that I see with the Palo Alto NGFW being an all-in-one appliance is that because of the different features that are being put into a single appliance, the OS tends to be beefier. Over the eight years, we have seen that the number of features or analyses being put into the appliance itself has a tendency to slow down the appliance, especially at the time of bootup. So, any time we are doing maintenance work, the time required for the appliance to boot up and be fully functional again is significantly longer than eight years ago. They could find a way to make this all-in-one appliance faster."
"The user interface can be significantly simplified."
"The analytics could be improved."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 277 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 162 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.