We mainly use the firewall part. We use it to interface with our cloud environments.

We have a CloudGuard firewall in place, and we have Azure or AWS networks at the backend. We use it to secure workloads and be a bridge to our on-prem as a hybrid solution.

It makes securing our cloud workload super easy, and we are able to push any sort of policy changes we need pretty quickly. It is a lot better than the native cloud firewalls that are available in terms of ease of use and features. Check Point IPS is way more advanced than the native cloud firewall solutions.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. It is fantastic. It makes our security operations a lot smoother because we only have to push policy once to our cloud firewalls and our on-prem firewalls. We can select whichever firewalls we want and hit install. The changes are made across all different types of devices. We had evaluated the native cloud firewalls for a specific use case, but we saw that Check Point firewalls were superior in the aspects that we were looking at for our requirements. 

We just set up the firewalls and forget about them. We only have to do jumbo hotfix upgrades on the major version upgrades. For the most part, the uptime on them is fantastic. We do not have any downtime on them, so we never have to worry about them, which is why I do not have a lot of experience with them. We just set them up and forget about them.

CloudGuard Network Security has been fantastic in terms of identifying threats. Being able to log those cloud firewalls to the same place where all of our other Check Point firewalls are is a huge plus because we can see where something gets prevented by IPS or something like that.

We only use it for the firewall, so it is about security.

I want the upgrades of their CloudGuard solution to major versions to be easier. We have had a few small hiccups. They have different types of cloud clusters called Geo Clusters, and those just cannot be upgraded past a certain point, which is a hurdle that we are currently experiencing.

We have been using CloudGuard Network Security for four years.

Its stability is amazing. We have never had any weird downtime issues with our CloudGuard firewalls.

We do not use any of the auto-scaling features that Check Point provides. We do not have a use case for it, so I cannot attest to that.

When you get the right person, Check Point TAC is fantastic, but sometimes, it can take a while to find the right tech engineer to be able to answer your problem within a reasonable amount of time. Most TAC engineers can answer a question, but some might take longer than others. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

It is super easy to deploy. In a few clicks, it is up and going. 

I deployed it myself.

We have definitely seen an ROI, but I am not sure how to quantify that. I am satisfied with it. 

It is definitely easy to use and simple. Compared to the native cloud firewalls where if they do not have a feature, you are out of luck, I feel that Check Point has a very superior feature set.

I like the flexibility because I am pretty sure you can use the same license on Azure or AWS. I forgot the name of the license, but there is a specific type you can use that lets you interchange them, and that is pretty good. I like that. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. The only reason it is not a ten is that sometimes there are hiccups when we have to interact with it, such as while upgrading. These are small things, but I wish it was more seamless than it already is. It is already pretty seamless, but there can always be improvements.

We use it to secure our network. We use it to manage our firewalls and some of the other services that we have with them.

By implementing CloudGuard Network Security, we mainly wanted visibility.

CloudGuard Network Security saves time from having to go to multiple places to look for different things. It gives us the ability to see it all in one place. We could realize its benefits in less than 90 days.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid-clouds as well as on-prem. We are able to combine different aspects into one place.

I am confident in our cloud network security. Check Point is a great company. They stay up to date on everything that is happening, and they keep us informed about anything that needs to be done to maintain that security posture.

The visibility is most valuable. It allows us to see all of our devices from one place, and it gives us the ability to manage push updates and things like that from one place.

Its price is fair, but it can be more favorable.

We have been using CloudGuard Network Security for about two years.

It feels very stable to me.

Its scalability is good. It is being used across multiple departments. There are 300 users and a lot of endpoints.

We do not have any plans to increase its usage this year. We might do that in 2025.

Their support is great. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We did not use any similar solution previously.

I was not too much involved in its deployment. My role is not as technical as it used to be.

We worked with partners to help us with the deployment who had expertise in this, so it was pretty straightforward. Our implementation strategy was to work with a partner.

We had a Check Point partner for implementation. Our experience with them was good. 

We have seen an ROI in terms of time and labor costs. People do not have to spend as much time on different things. They have one interface to manage different things.

It is fairly priced, but it can be a little expensive from time to time. 

I am not aware of any solutions that we have evaluated. Check Point is our firewall vendor, so we went with them. We were able to have just one partner and one point of contact for any issues. Having a bunch of different products creates problems of its own. You do not know whom to call and whom not to call for an issue. Having one single contact to oversee all that is beneficial to us.

I would advise taking your time. Be patient, and you will see results. It does not take much time, but some people want to see a return right away. It took us about 90 days to see the return. It is more based on you getting in it and doing things with it, but be patient.

I would rate CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

We use it for security in public cloud implementations, specifically in AWS and Azure. 

For my customer's organization, it's important because they can work with the same kind of solution. They don't need many different solutions in many different use cases. And then they have better management of the solution in general.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. It's very important because when I have unified security, I have better control of the situation. 

If there's an attack or something like that, we can react faster. It's easier for everyone in the organization to work with the Infinity platform.  

The integration in the Infinity portal. It's very important for someone to consider the solution if you need to work through a purchase partner. Because they can manage the entire solution consistently with the on-premise Quantum solution and the cloud solution in Azure or AWS without that integration, it's valuable.  

It needs to cover additional kinds of infrastructure, like containers and serverless options. It's somewhat limited in that area.

I have been using it for six months. 

It is a stable product. I haven't heard any problems or complaints from my customers. 

It's quite scalable because we scale by compute units. It's very easy for us to make a new deployment.

We used to replace cloud-native solutions from Azure directly or AWS. We don't implement those originally.

It's important for us because we have had a lot of traditional customers. Then, it's a good way to extend this security to the new deployments in public clouds. It's very important for us. 

Additionally, the customer is going to find another choice in the market.

The deployment is easy.  

The price is fair for most of the customers. We don't find the price excessive. It's okay. We can sell it. It's not really hard.

So, the pricing is good. 

I would recommend using it. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. It is very good. Because it's very well integrated with the traditional platform, especially the Infinity portal part. The unified security concept is very sound for that.

However, there is always room for improvement, we always have to extend the capabilities to other use cases.

We have deployed CloudGuard in our environment to protect conversations between different network segments. For example, we can protect north-south traffic and east-west traffic.

We deploy our production workload in different cloud provider environments, such as GCP, Azure, AWS, and IBM.

CloudGuard Network Security enhances our network security from an end-to-end connectivity point of view. We can deliver high-performance security to our different functional teams to support our business.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid-clouds and on-prem. We have one unified platform to manage on-premises gateway and CloudGuard gateway. We have a unified and standard way to ensure compliance and enforce all the definition requirements and process outcomes.

Check Point is at the top end of the market when it comes to security and threat prevention. They have a service called ThreatCloud. We get frequent updates from ThreatCloud. We can look at the numbers, signatures, and bad IPs they provide to us, and we can compare this information with other vendors or competitors. It gives us confidence that they are better in terms of threat detection.

All the features that we subscribe to from CloudGuard NGTP are valuable. All the threat prevention and access control features give us the network security that we expect.

From the policy optimization point of view, they can do better. This is not just for CloudGuard. CloudGuard is one little piece managed by Check Point. They can also integrate a third-party policy management solution to improve that. For example, Tufin is focused on policy optimization and management.

They can also offer solutions faster to address customer concerns.

We have been using this solution for five or six years in our environment.

Check Point overall is pretty stable. We can rely on them. This is one of the key reasons why we stuck with Check Point for more than 20 years.

It is good. They have all kinds of solutions from on-premises to the cloud. There might be some limitations to their partnership with certain cloud providers. They can speed up to give us better solutions, especially for CloudGuard. I know some competitors offer solutions to address customer concerns faster than Check Point. It is an area for improvement.

Our experience has been good. Their sales engineers and support engineers are pretty good, but they also have some gaps. They can improve that. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have seen an ROI because they fixed the gap. We were able to put a solution to fix a gap. It gives us confidence about how secure our environment is.

We have a pretty good partnership with Check Point. We have a global subscription and agreement. They give us a pretty good corporate discount.

We have a global subscription to cover everything, not just the cloud but also the on-premises gateway. We have all the threat prevention subscriptions as well, which makes us stick with Check Point. Even though we get a better price offer from competitors, this global discount makes its pricing a better deal for us.

Before deploying it, we did compare it with other vendors. We looked at the major players in the market, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet.

We did not go for a cloud-native solution because they could not provide the same security as Check Point. We deployed CloudGuard in all of our cloud environments because we felt that their native solutions could not satisfy our requirements. We were also able to add selective threat prevention features, which native-gateway solutions might not have had. This is a value-add when we deploy CloudGuard in a cloud.

CloudGuard Network Security is easy to use for us. Because we have been using Check Point, it is easier for us to integrate new features, rather than deploying a new environment.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

We are using it for in and out of our cloud from on-premises. Security from our SD-WAN and express route connectivity is our main use case.

We also have vendor integrations. SAP RISE was the big one that we recently had where we were using dedicated CloudGuard network gateways for straight vendor implementations.

The ease of deployment has been a benefit. Having Check Point on-premises definitely helped with moving to the cloud. It feels very similar after you migrate. It was not as cumbersome as on-premises, and it was a little less scary for others. It enabled others within our company to adopt.

We have unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. We are using just gateways to the cloud, and we have the same management server and the same console as on-prem gateways. It definitely allows you to have unified policies across the board. This seamless integration is a huge plus. Smart-1 Cloud is the next portion to go up to, so we can remove the complexity of management, such as login and whatnot, from our responsibilities.

By using CloudGuard Network Security, we have a good foundation. The history of Check Point has a reliability that I trust. Most of the improvements we do are more internal. There are actions that we, as customers, need to do. It helps to have vendors like Check Point who will go out of their way to help you make their product seamless. It is only as good as how you use it. That has been a big positive, and we have had a good accounts team that has been able to bring proper resources to us, and we encourage those additional resources they provide to us to help us be successful.

For identifying security threats, our company uses a portfolio of different kinds of vector spots and inspection spots. Some of that is handled by another team, and I do not have direct insight into that. However, it has definitely added some automatic reaction with our on-premise setup, which has helped us integrate cross-platform. That portion has been great because no one wants to be too vendor-dependent. You want to be vendor-agnostic. The fact that we can utilize it across multiple vendors has been a positive for us.

We are using gateways, and I appreciate the high-availability gateways they have. They stand out more than the competitors. 

The Check Point architecture team adapting fluently to the architecture that each cloud has is valuable. They are adaptive to customer solutions, which is a big advantage.

Some more built-in marketplace templates would be nice. It would be nice to see more vendor assistance in deployments and backup of recoveries versus having customers rely upon that themselves. That would make it a lot more seamless and aligned with the standard on-premise model that is there. Check Point can extend the same posture that they have to CloudGuard and make that transition very seamless.

Check Point does not have as big a footprint in engineering teams as Cisco or Palo Alto has, especially in the US market. Therefore, finding someone who understands Check Point is a lot harder. If Check Point can make it easier for seamless transitions, it will build the confidence of engineers and help with the adoption of a new vendor for those engineers. Anything they can do to help with that is a competitive advantage, and it works for any company looking into it.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for about three years.

It is very stable, but in any virtualized environment, you are still dependent on your cloud provider. If Amazon, Microsoft, Google, or any other cloud provider reboots the gateway because they are doing some maintenance and did not tell you about it, it is not Check Point's fault. It is something where you have to correlate whether you had an outage or lost a node. You still have to report that. It still looks like that your Check Point firewall went down, so guilty until proven innocent type of deal comes into play. That has been a little bit more challenging than when it is your hardware on-premises. Outside of a power issue or an upstream switch, if something goes wrong in the box, it is not on Check Point. At that point, you can hammer down to the cloud. Having shared resources makes it a little bit difficult to delineate. You have to go case by case.

I have not directly experienced the need for scaling, particularly horizontally. Based on studies, presentations, documentation, and architecture, scalability is definitely there, so I have confidence that if my business needs to shift to high throughput and high sessions, Check Point will have a solution for me to do that seamlessly.

I have always had challenges with TAC. There still seems to be a difference in the type or level of tech support you get based on the region you call into. That has been a little bit more challenging. We have had issues with getting the same candid answers where they were regurgitating without looking through. At the support level, we have had some challenges back and forth, but when we talk to our account team or our sales engineer and say that we have a problem, their reaction is very quick. Their escalation internals take care of that. They get us the right people.

For additional deployments from the cloud perspective, we have always had great contacts to get to. I have been very happy with the level of support Check Point has given us for new deployments' design ideas and problems. The feature roadmap they chose has been excellent.

Overall, I would rate their customer service and support an eight out of ten. I am dropping points because of the TAC issues that I have had.

We do use another vendor that does a similar function. The vendor is Fortinet. Both vendors have their own pros and cons. The big difference between the two from a cloud network security perspective is that the high availability model that Check Point has is not what the competitor has. So, you are still relying upon load balancers, and you are still relying upon cloud failover, which adds a little bit of complexity. This high availability has been a huge plus. We have not seen our current vendors or other vendors be able to do so. 

We, as such, have not switched. We have a different vendor we use, and we have not made the decision to switch. We are still at that deciding factor because we are seeing where things fit with both platforms. From an ROI perspective, switching would not be advantageous to us at this point based on what we are getting, but it is definitely something that is looked upon as we look at life cycles. We can then make a decision one way or the other to meet our business needs. 

The decision to go for CloudGuard instead of our cloud vendor's cloud firewall was predated. There were some implementations that were already there. We have made additional investments where we did go between vendor A and vendor B and made a decision. I made the decision and chose Check Point, not just for the single pane of glass and ease of management but also for the high availability. For the high availability that we were deploying, there was no other solution that could give us the seamlessness we were looking for. We could not get that from other vendors, so it became evident that going for Check Point was the right decision to make.

We are a Microsoft Azure Shop, and the deployment model would be high-availability gateways. We are not using gateway low balancers. We are just using the high-availability deployments.

In terms of ease of deployment, I cannot speak for the earlier years, but I did hear that there were some pain points. That was more of a combination of cloud maturity in Microsoft and Check Point integrations. There were other challenges related to intermixing and the knowledge base. This was when Check Point was new to our company, and we probably did not have the right MSP support. A lot of those gaps and failures were due to the support and not having that strong knowledge base and operating support afterward. Recent deployments, from 2020 to 2024, are different. There is a night and day kind of difference. We had instant Check Point support. They walked us through and sat on the call while we deployed in real-time with our CloudOps teams. It was seamless. We ran into a gap, and we were easily able to fix it right then and there. They were very collaborative. It has just been a night-and-day type of scenario.

For the first implementation, we used an MSP consultant in collaboration with Check Point. We did the recent deployment in-house directly with Check Point.

We are yet to figure that part out. There is a lot of tuning on our side, and we have definitely seen its remediation and prevention capabilities help us in very critical situations. Knowing that we could be proactive instead of constantly being reactive has definitely put me at much more ease at night. There are some improvements to that. 

Investment-wise, this is where you look at the consolidation and realize that you might have different vendor technologies that might be doing the same thing. This is something we will have to look at. It is not necessarily a Check Point problem. It is something that we, as an enterprise, have to look into.

My experience has been extremely positive. It was not a concern because I had an account team that fought for pricing for our company. They were not pushing me to professional services for certain help. I was instantly getting a CloudGuard architect to help us out. They understood our environment and bridged the gap where we needed that help with our public cloud provider and with Check Point, in this case. That is what made the experience. They allowed us to scale it well, and that is where Check Point has done very well. 

They realize that customers need to be adaptive in their cloud deployments, and they are much quicker than on-prem. They know that in the end, their product speaks for itself, so pricing has always been very competitive compared to other vendors. I have always had account teams no matter what company I have worked for, and they have always done a good job of meeting that gap. So, its pricing was not the reason we made the decision.

I would rate CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten. The ease of template deployment would have been nice. There was also a little bit of weirdness with the licensing models for our on-premise management. That is pretty much it. Otherwise, I am extremely happy with it. They are not negatives. It is still great.

Our use case is simple. We utilize CloudGuard Network Security with a bridge to connect all components in the cloud directly to the on-premise. By establishing peering with the bridge, we route traffic to the Google Cloud-based cluster. We apply our standard on-premise environment rules to CloudGuard, utilizing threat prevention, EPS, etc.

The most valuable feature for us is the simplicity of creating this environment. Even though our current cloud usage is limited, the process of setting up machines in the product and establishing an HR system was straightforward. 

CloudGuard Network Security helped us create stable VPN connections from our Google Cloud to our data center. This was important because we had issues with dependencies between Google, the data center, etc.

We have an on-premise management system, and it's straightforward. We use it within the same management of our other files. 

In the past year, I noticed that the challenging part, especially in the cloud, is upgrading to the next release of the firewall. Unlike on-premise upgrades, it's not as simple in the cloud. You need to recreate the machine, which makes the process more complex.

We have been using CloudGuard Network Security for four years now. We initially adopted it when we began using the Google Cloud platform. It helps us enable connections between the cloud, data center, and hybrid infrastructure. 

The solution is stable. 

The tool's pricing is not cheap. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

My customers use the solution for technical and internal Azure resources, including remote access VPN.

Some retail customers find the scale-up and scale-down features valuable, particularly with scale sets. This is useful for handling increased loads on devices and utilizing firewalls, similar to on-premises setups with active standby configurations.

The solution allows customers to migrate workloads securely into the cloud space with a trusted vendor, maintaining everything under a single platform. This ensures visibility into their cloud environments similar to on-premises setups, all managed through a single smart console. 

Unified security management simplifies operations by providing visibility into both cloud and on-premises infrastructure. The skill set required to manage it remains the same for both environments.

The level of confidence in CloudGuard Network Security, both for myself and my customers, is very high. The product operates familiarly, consistent with what customers are used to, and it is a trusted name in the space.

Based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model.

I have been using the product for four to five years. 

CloudGuard Network Security has improved its stability. It is a stable platform. 

The tool has improved its scalability over the four years. 

The support experience can be hit or miss. It depends on the expertise of the support representative. Some are highly skilled and knowledgeable, while others require more guidance. There might be room for improvement in this aspect.

Neutral

The tool's deployment is straightforward, whether through the marketplace or templates. It offers flexibility for making amendments before deployment. 

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the solution an eight. The ease of deployment, the single management function, and the features it provides, especially in terms of scale sets and scaling, contribute to it being a solid platform. Many customers are increasingly interested in using it to protect their assets within Azure and AWS, which are the two main areas of operation.

If a colleague is considering purchasing the solution for its security features and licensing, my advice would be to ensure correct deployment. While the solutions are generally straightforward to deploy, there are nuances, especially in Azure infrastructure, that can make troubleshooting more challenging. It's crucial to either use a knowledgeable partner for deployment or ensure a clear understanding of the process before proceeding, as it may be more complicated than anticipated.

We use the product for network security and cloud workload protection. 

It's easy to set up in Azure Cloud. The ease of setup helps us save time.

It offers an easy and nice way to manage the gateways, similar to on-prem hardware. It has packet filtering features. Our security operations are faster and less prone to errors. We selected CloudGuard Network Security due to its visibility. 

CloudGuard Network Security more or less provides us with unified security management across hybrid-clouds as well as on-prem. We manage both environments on the same console. It makes our security operations faster and less prone to error. 

The solution needs to improve the interruptions that happen during gateway upgrades. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

There were no major stability issues, although switching gateways could cause some downtime, approximately a minute until the new gateway is fully deployed.

CloudGuard Network Security's scalability is good. 

The tool's support is good. Their responses can get delayed due to time zone differences. 

Positive

I have only used the built-in solutions from Azure. 

CloudGuard is easier to understand. CloudGuard is very easy to translate and easy to incorporate features. CloudGuard has better features like packet filters, EPS, threat prevention, and filtering.

We chose CloudGuard because of the visibility. It's much better.

The setup process saves us time, especially in the Azure cloud, as the system continually improves.

We have seen ROI through its visibility and through understanding attacks on the workloads.

For us, the solution was easy to understand. The syncing of the CloudGuard Network Security is like that of the gateway on-prem. Translating in a very easy path to bring the features is very easy. I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The solution helps protect network security by offering threat prevention, addressing vulnerabilities, and utilizing blades. 

We use it for the protection of our internal services. We're a Telco company, our internal users are on the machines. We also have some external services that we protect. We protect our customers and our public cloud with it.

VMware is our public cloud provider. 

Threat prevention is the biggest benefit we see from it. 

The network security is the most valuable aspect of CloudGuard. I am a network engineer so it's the most relevant feature to me.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid-clouds and on-prem. We manage all of those environments through this one solution. 

It's user-friendly. It's a multi-domain solution. CloudGuard is really, really good. 

I have experience with FortiGate and Cisco. I worked with them at previous jobs. FortiGate is easy and user-friendly when it comes to the configuration, but it is unstable in some countries and the routing tables have problems. The configuration of the network is in the same management platform, which might be better for some.

In comparison, CloudGaurd is very stable.

Cisco is hard to use, FortiGate is easy and CloudGuard is somewhere in the middle when it comes to ease of use. 

When it comes to identifying security threats, CloudGuard is really good compared to its competition.

I am confident that CloudGuard's Network Security can protect us. It enables me to sleep very well at night.

We utilize logging systems, and geolocation is crucial for us as some applications must only be accessible from our country. However, there have been occasional issues with this feature. It drops requests. It's not always precise. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

My team has been using it for five to six years. 

CloudGuard Network Security is very stable. 

We have 28 licenses. We have 800 servers on our private cloud. 

Their support is fast. They answer quickly.

Positive

We integrate with NSX. The setup wasn't hard.

We have seen ROI. It saves us time because it's stable. It's easily administered. We have time to do other tasks. It is easy. 

Licensing is complicated. When a license expires, we have to renew it and the process is complicated. They should make the process easier.

Using CloudGuard Network Security saves time due to its stability and ease of administration. The solution is not complex, allowing administrators to focus on other tasks. The configuration process is straightforward. It can integrate with NSX. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. We manage a total of 800 servers that host a variety of components, including our infrastructure, customer applications, databases, application sites, and disaster recovery systems

We use the product to protect Azure workloads. 

The solution's most valuable feature is scalability. We can increase the number of CPUs, memory, and firewalls throughout easily. Using CloudGuard Network Security for managing cloud firewall rules is considered easier than using the normal security groups provided by Azure or AWS.

The solution needs to support more hypervisors. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The solution's stability is good. 

The tool's scalability is good. 

Sometimes Check Point's technical support takes a long time when you need assistance with developing or fixing issues.

Positive

CloudGuard Network Security's deployment is straightforward. 

It took around a year to see the benefits of using CloudGuard Network Security. If you have CloudGuard Network Security managed by the same management server used for on-premises, you can control all policies in one management tool. I am confident in using the product. 

We are a Check Point partner, hence we trust the product and the company. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.