Our primary use case is for segmentation and next-generation protection.

Our clients choose CloudGuard as a natural progression of their solutions. They understand Microsoft and CloudGuard fits. They are vendor-oriented. They stick with Microsoft. They have a lot of experience with Check Point and this fits in.

Check Point Management is the best and Azure management is also very good. It's simple and has high security. There are no additional costs which is one of the advantages.

Compared to other solutions, CloudGuard is easier to use.

I don't see much need for improvement.

In Czech, we are a little behind the USA and Germany so we have matured in our mentality to move towards the cloud.

Check Point could show us use cases that would help us in Czech and could help us with security threats in our specific country.

The level of confidence our clients have in their cloud network security using CloudGuard Network Security depends. Some are very confident but some are worried about information being exploited. When compared to other vendors, CloudGuard is the best when it comes to threat protection.

I have been implementing CloudGuard for our clients for four years.

It's stable.

It scales well for our clients' needs. We have deployed over 2,000 servers.

Support is good for CloudGuard. It could depend on the support person who is helping us. Different regions offer different levels of support. Israel and US offer the best support.

It's easy for me to deploy.

Every project needs different pricing. I believe that when we talk with the particular guys, we will find a price for the customer. They are flexible in terms of that because we need to be flexible, and we have many companies who are aggressive with discounts.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

The tool's most valuable features are IPS and blades. These features are valuable for security.

CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is expensive. We have encountered issues with its licensing.

I have been using the product for six years.

CloudGuard Network Security's stability is good.

In terms of scalability in the cloud, manual deployment is straightforward. However, the challenge arises due to the pay-as-you-go model. The issue of buying licenses is not specific to the Check Point but is more related to our ordering process.

The tool's support is good.

Check Point helped us with the deployment.

CloudGuard Network Security is an efficient solution. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We utilize CloudGuard Network Security for internet surfing and handle inter-sector traffic between VPCs. Specifically, we have over 200 accounts in AWS, each with its own VPC. The solution interconnects all the regions.

The tool's most valuable feature is its scalability. You will only have to pay less for scaling up. Its notable benefit is deployment complexity. Regional deployment is simpler compared to on-premise setup.

When upgrading the firewall, the old VPC containing the firewalls needs to be destroyed. After that, a new firewall is redeployed in the setup. Additionally, there's a need to separate the routing, and the routing from the old VPC has to be recreated in the new one.

I have been using the product for two years.

We had issues with stability. We have an open ticket at the support regarding this.

CloudGuard Network Security is scalable.

The tool's support is good.

CloudGuard Network Security is not too cheap.

I don't see any difference in user experience between on-prem and the cloud setup. We have an MDS environment where we can manage the whole country. The tool enables us to manage policies on the same platform for branches and regions in the country. I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the product as an internal firewall between Azure, on-premises, and the internet.

The tool's most valuable features are the REST APIs that help to automate the deployment and maintenance process. It helps us to reduce time to 15-25 minutes compared to the manual process which used to take around two to three hours.

It eliminates the need to manually import hundreds of IP addresses into firewalls and architecture objects. This process now happens automatically.

The tool helps us to automate processes. Operating it is relatively easy, especially for standard tasks like implementing firewall rules for source, destination, port, or URL. Our team can handle these tasks.

We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations.

I have been using the product since 2016.

The product is stable.

CloudGuard Network Security's scalability is easy.

The tool's first response is usually prompt, and issues are generally resolved. Additionally, the support team proactively follows up, reminding us to provide necessary details when we might be on a high workload.

The deployment experience varies depending on the structure of your environment. In our case, we invested significant time in designing our network and aligning it with our existing Check Point environment. Once the overall design was complete, the actual deployment was straightforward. We have automated most of the process, enabling us to set up the environment within a few hours. Additional nodes can be added in just 20-30 minutes.

We had evaluated Barracuda before CloudGuard Network Security. We chose CloudGuard Network Security since Check Point knowledge was available in-house.

Invest time in analyzing the templates provided by Check Point and tailor them to your specific requirements. Understanding the deployment process is crucial, as it allows you to benefit from it in later stages. You can optimize it later based on the needs. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use CloudGuard Network Security to protect Azure's networking environment.

The CloudGuard Network Security's most valuable feature is implementing IPS for accessing our data center and server environment in Azure. It helps us to prevent attacks. By protecting our environment with Check Point, which we were already familiar with, it provided a solution that extended into the cloud environment.

The product needs to improve support. They don't consider my case the number one priority even though I want a quick resolution.

I have been using the product for three years.

The solution is getting better. We faced issues a few years back. Its stability depends on Azure.

The solution's scalability is not good. Our upgrade process was not straightforward. It took one day to complete.

The solution's support is very good. We have Check Point certified engineers. At times, Check Point's support can take a day or two to respond.

We opted for CloudGuard Network Security after evaluating what Azure had to offer. It proved easy to manage, and the crucial aspect for us was the ability to see the activities on our central log system. We can see everything in the environment.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. We required some time to learn it.

The tool's pricing is reasonable.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across both our hybrid clouds and on-premises environments. I rate it a nine out of ten. I would recommend others to install the solution.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helps to ensure the security and protection of IT systems. We have many API integrations and want to ensure its protection.

The product gives analytic reports.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security should give productive reports as per business requirements. It needs to improve support since the time-limit extended beyond a day. It should include more seamless API integrations.

I have been using the product for four years.

The product's stability is good.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very much scalable. My company has 1000 users.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's deployment is easy and takes one day to complete. You need four resources to handle it.

The product's licensing costs are yearly.

I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use it to protect Internet access from our AWS environment.

Before we implemented CloudGuard, we had no filtering on what was accessed on the internet from our AWS environment.

Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet.

It allows us to filter what the servers on AWS can access on the Internet and allows us to filter in terms of IPS, antivirus, and so on, for the contents that are accessed on the Internet.

The complexity to deploy should be decreased.

I have been using this solution for about five years.

It is a stable solution. It has been pretty stable for us. We haven't faced any problems since it rolled out.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have around 200 end users using this solution in our company.

The customer service and support from the vendor take a lot of time.

The first line of support is not very good. They usually start with junior engineers when you open a case, which can be time-consuming.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is easy and ten is difficult to setup.

For the deployment, we work with the vendor. So, the deployment took two weeks.

We need to provision the firewall, deploy the manager, and understand where the firewall needs to connect, which AWS area, and so on.

We just needed more than two people for the deployment. We worked with the security network security architect and called them engineers.

With ten being very expensive, I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

It is expensive.

It's worth it in the sense that it can protect your network, and it's very scalable.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Check Point firewalls and SMS servers in on-prem DC and in multi-cloud environments extensively. These are used to protect the perimeter, DMZ, and internal network to protect and inspect network traffic.

The firewalls are best of breed and provide extensive rich features and a diverse range of protection against DDoS, malware, ransomware, and zero-day attacks. Also, it is used for terminating client and mobile VPN tunnels, URL filtering, IDP, DLP, etc.

The environment is Internal and a multi-tenant hosted for external clients which is a complex setup.

The new Check Point firewalls are best-of-breed and provide next-gen firewall features with AI and ML capabilities. This helps to reduce the operational support overhead and protects against new emerging threats.

Previously we used Juniper, Cisco, and other firewall platforms which have very limited capabilities and offer no inspection or threat-prevention features at all.

Check Point has changed this dynamic completely and offers a complete security solution to protect all digital assets which is immensely helpful.

Identity awareness, URL filtering, IDS, DLP, Content Filtering, VPN, and Application Control are all excellent. They provide features to inspect internet traffic, data protection compliance, and DDoS attack detection and protection.

The Check Point firewall product that we picked up has an excellent feature set and all the required licenses, it's a nicely engineered firewall technology and has a great support team to escalate.

Features like threat prevention and protection are good to have to protect against zero-day attacks, malware, and ransomware.

Software bugs and OS releases can be very fast to keep up with. Check Point has a history of moving fast with software release and upgrade cycles which are difficult to keep up with at times.

New features should have a single-pane-of-glass view for on-prem DC and cloud environments.

Licensing costs are very high compared to other vendors. Check Point needs to be competitive to keep the cost down for the customers and partners.

The previous Check Point OS model had to support multiple OSs which was difficult and cumbersome (i.e. SPLAT, IPSO, GAIA).

I've used the solution for ten years.

We did use a different solution and wanted to have better security capability and visibility.

The solution is expensive but feature-rich.

We looked at other options and checked if the firewalls had all the security and compliance features required by the organization.