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.

The solution is a core operating system, and we use it for threat intelligence.

CloudGuard has a better catch rate with respect to any attack which is happening. We once faced an attack in a customer's environment on one of our data centers, and Check Point Firewall blocked that attack. The solution's performance is on the higher side.

The feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable. We haven't had any vulnerabilities in Check Point in the last six months, which is a plus point because the OS Check Point provides is hardened enough that it's not vulnerable to the newer issues, so the network security solution is given in a proper way. These features are an advantage for our customers.

The solution is easy to use once deployed if the administrators have a basic understanding of firewalling. Administrators just have to check the traffic passing through the solution, which will log the traffic properly. And if anything gets dropped, the solution will showcase that to you. The management server Check Point uses is a gold standard.

Check Point CloudGuard is not a feature-centric product because Check Point concentrates on security. For example, if a customer asks for reporting, it might not be available, like a bandwidth report. At most, the reports are given with respect to security, not infrastructure.

I've used CloudGuard for the last three years.

We have more than 50 customers.

Customer support needs to think about what the customer is talking about. They need to improve on that.

CloudGuard is not a plug-and-play product and requires proper technical knowledge to deploy it. You need the help of a proper professional to deploy it. Deployment hardly takes four hours, but that's only if you know what you're doing. You need to plan the deployment with respect to AWS. You have to know what exactly the customers have deployed in AWS or Azure, or any cloud solution, and based on the review, you need to do their architecture before you can start the deployment. The first step, then, is to understand the customer's data because everything is on a template when it comes to the cloud. You should understand which template you need to use on any cloud. It is impossible to deploy if you're not aware of the customer's environment and how the cloud infrastructure is made. After selecting the proper template, you have to do the implementation. The implementation will go smoothly if you understand the customer's requirements and infrastructure.

I would not say Check Point is very expensive, but when customers compare it with Sophos or any other products, the price is on the higher side.

In terms of features, FortiGate has more features in terms of routing.

Our customers use Check Point solutions both on-premise and on the cloud.

Check Point's research and development happening in terms of threat intelligence is better than its competitors, and Check Point's vulnerabilities are fewer. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has proper security in place with respect to the vulnerabilities. They do not have any vulnerabilities right now. And the research and development happening on Check Point is on the higher side. Most zero-day attacks are protected against. Customers should go for Check Point because of these two points.

If a customer wants FortiGate instead, it's all about whether they can map the budget with Check Point or any other security solution. I cannot compare Check Point and FortiGate, though, because each has its own market.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has a beautiful threat emulation different from the market. They have a threat extraction feature. The solution's zero phishing feature is pretty much commendable. The solution has one of the best reporting any vendor has in network security. The solution also has a CSPM or posture management tool inbuilt into CGNS or network security.

The solution’s technical support, DNS security and training could be improved. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's training and reachability to the customer can be done a bit better. One recommendation from my side is that the handover of the tasks can be a bit better. If an engineer is on a ticket and their shift gets over, the smooth handshake between the two engineers can be a bit better.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for more than one and a half years.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is a stable product.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is a scalable product. I would recommend the solution to small, medium, and enterprise companies because it has a scalable model. The solution is over the cloud and can be integrated with any company.

Previously, I worked with Palo Alto, a direct competitor of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. CloudGuard Network Security's threat extraction features, reporting features, and threat emulation are better than Palo Alto's. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is more user-friendly than Palo Alto. On the other hand, Palo Alto has a bit better DNS security than Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is easy to deploy, and if you are unable to do it, you can get support from the OEM.

The solution's implementation depends on the customer's network scenario and policies. The initial setup doesn't take more than 30 minutes, and the rest can be done later.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is far better than Palo Alto's because Palo Alto is very expensive. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security comes at a price that even a small business can manage to buy, whereas Palo Alto would restrict you to enterprise customers. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's licensing cost changes from country to country. The solution has different discount models across the globe in regions like Asia and Ireland.

People who want to implement Check Point CloudGuard Network Security should focus during the planning phase. If planning is done correctly and the prerequisites are matched perfectly, they won't face any challenges during deployment. But it's very important to check the prerequisites' limitations.

Overall, I rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security nine and a half out of ten.

My clients were different small businesses, and they were migrating to the cloud. We've been using it as a general cloud security tool.

The interface in terms of being able to have access for myself and the client so that we can easily observe and watch what is going on, has really improved the organization.

We have seen time to value with this solution. We will continue to use more Check Point solutions in the future.

The versatility is the solution's most valuable feature.

There are some usability issues we'd like to see improved.

We're going to be switching to XDR and would like integration with XDR.

I've used the solution for only about a year.

The solution is good. I'd rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I'd rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The support is good.

We did not previously use a different solution.

I'm involved with the integration and was involved in the setup of specific areas.

The initial setup was alright. I wasn't the architect of the whole thing. In my area, the implementation seemed to be pretty straightforward.

We did not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for the deployment.

We do not yet have enough of a baseline to calculate ROI.

The pricing is fair. It's the client who is paying for it, not me directly. However, they seem satisfied.

We previously evaluated a few other options.

The usability is moderate.

The product has helped us free up some time. It's a complicated situation, however.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.