We performed a comparison between Check Point Security Management and Elastic Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point Security Management is praised for its centralized management features, user-friendly interface, and extensive monitoring capabilities. Elastic Security is commended for its adaptability, extensive customization options, and seamless integration with the ELK Stack. Check Point Security Management could improve by simplifying the migration of security policies, optimizing performance, and expanding its management API. Other pain points include threat tracking and documentation. Elastic Security could improve by reducing resource usage, automating threat response, and simplifying the user experience.
Service and Support: Check Point Security Management's customer service is widely praised for being knowledgeable, supportive, and reliable. Although some users had problems with inexperienced agents and coordination issues, the overall support experience is positive. Some Elastic Security users found their support helpful, while others experienced difficulties and delays.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point Security Management is generally seen as easy to set up if the user has some expertise. Elastic Security generally has a straightforward setup but may require trained specialists.
Pricing: Check Point Security Management is seen as a solid investment, offering flexibility and a good value for the price. Elastic Security is considered affordable and cost-effective, with pricing based on the size of the monitored environment.
ROI: Check Point users said the solution offers a steady ROI over time. Elastic Security has shown mixed results in terms of ROI, with some users expressing concerns about the quality of their premium support.
"The control is granular, so you can set policy profiles for different organizational profiles."
"It is good when it comes to access control, which is the basic feature that we use in a firewall appliance or solution. Check Point is effective when it comes to security control and threat prevention."
"The support is pretty incredible. Check Point has support rep programs that go all the way up to putting one of their own people in your business to help you. Then, they have support programs. If you're an expert, you just need to be able to download updated files and stuff. They have support programs like that, too."
"Check Point has been very effective in terms of threat management and comprehensive protection against vulnerabilities, and it has given us confidence that our data is not going anywhere."
"The unique management using Smart Console for all firewalls is very useful."
"URL filtering is a very important feature."
"The most beneficial features for us are the alert classifications, which help us prioritize critical issues, and the detailed reports that provide insights into attack origins and purposes, such as TLS violations or content violations."
"With the generation and review of logs, we have verified some vulnerabilities and attempted attacks to generate improvements in our infrastructure and policies to help avoid issues in the future."
"The feature that we have found the most valuable is scalability."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature for me is Discover."
"The solution has a good community surrounding it for lots of helpful documentation for troubleshooting purposes."
"The most valuable features are the speed, detail, and visualization. It has the latest standards."
"The performance is good and it is faster than IBM QRadar."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability. We are in Indonesia, more engineers understand Elastic Security here. So it is easier to scale and also develop. In features, the discovery to query all the logs is very important to us. It is very easy, especially with the query function and the feature to generate alerts and create tools. Sometimes we use the alert security dashboard to monitor our clients."
"It's a good platform and the very best in the current market. We looked at the Forester report from December 2022 where it was said to be a leader."
"I would like for users to have more control over the platform in the next release. Right now, the system is very central and general requiring new rules to be created that better-suite our requirements."
"In order to work management console, you need some good appliance or you need to provide more CPU and Memory to the appliance."
"In the last version from 80.20, there are some issues around SSNA Diction. I would like this to be improved."
"The migration from R77 Manager to R80 is a major upgrade. It's not very easy to do. There should be some kind of Wizard for a direct upgrade from the R77 to the R80. There should be an easy way for the customers to do the upgrade."
"You need some technical expertise to use the solution. I don't think it's accessible to the typical end-user. You need to access the box and use some command lines or the web interface. It would be nice to have a user-friendly dashboard and comprehensive reporting."
"Troubleshooting is quite complicated within multi-domain management. If an issue arises, the local administrator has to keep in mind that there are other domains that could be also affected."
"It would be helpful if the documentation and good practice guides are updated. Many are still from R77."
"I've found the solution was a bit unstable."
"Email notification should be done the same way as Logentries does it."
"There is an area of improvement in the Logs list. The load list may need to be paginated as there are limits."
"Their visuals and graphs need to be better."
"In terms of what could be improved with Elastic, in some use cases, especially on the advanced level, they are not ready made, so you'll have to write some scripts."
"The solution could offer better reporting features."
"This type of monitoring is not very mature just yet. We need more real-time information in a way that's easier to manage."
"If you compare this with CrowdStrike or Carbon Black, they can improve."
"It would be better if Elastic Security had less storage for data. My customers do not like this. Other vendors have local support in different countries, but Elastic Security doesn't. I would like to have Operational Technology (OT) security in the next release."
More Check Point Security Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Security Management is ranked 9th in Log Management with 55 reviews while Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Log Management with 59 reviews. Check Point Security Management is rated 8.8, while Elastic Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Check Point Security Management writes "Great DDoS protection, high availability, and useful firewall rule implementation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". Check Point Security Management is most compared with Wazuh, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, IBM Security QRadar, LogRhythm SIEM and Splunk Cloud Platform, whereas Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Check Point Security Management vs. Elastic Security report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.