We performed a comparison between Check Point SandBlast Network and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Check Point SandBlast Network Solution provides signature-based as well as zero-day threat protection. Also sandboxing can be performed on an on-premise device, cloud as well as the combination of both. Threat emulation is done on multiple OS & verdict is provided."
"Check Point has enabled us to detect a lot of threats and prevented a lot of threats from entering our environments. It has kept us safe."
"Check Point SandBlast is best in terms of the extraction function. Customers can get a clean firewall with extraction after I've cleaned and scanned it from Check Point. It's easy for users, too."
"The technology is impressive in general."
"You do not need to risk your network by using the in-line sandbox."
"It has caught some harmful attachments and downloads."
"It seems like it works all the time. We have never had an issue. We have never had something go undetected, anything major. All in all, it works pretty well."
"SandBlast updates the threat signatures frequently."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"The solution is completely integrated with all the other Palo Alto products. I think that it is the best part for endpoint protection. The firewall features include URL and DNS filtering, threat protection, and antivirus."
"The analysis is very fast."
"WildFire's application encryption is useful."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure."
"The most valuable features of the solution are user-friendliness, price, good security, and cloud-related options."
"Intuitive threat prevention and analysis solution, with a machine learning feature. Scalable, stable, and protects against zero-day threats."
"We have found a need for the application to be a bit more elastic, bringing it to SAS services and not IAS."
"When you have to scan emails that come with attachments, it takes a long time to examine them, which causes other emails not to be scanned, which can cause some danger to our organization."
"There should be some improvement in the solution's stability and scalability."
"There should be some customized price reductions in the offered packages."
"I would like to see these solutions being easier to manage from mobile applications - from either iOS or Android - including other operating systems that appear in the future."
"Today, we have it as part of a solution or a package. However, we'd like there to be a way where we can have the solution's features available to us in a cheaper way in the future."
"I would like if it could emulate bigger files and somehow improve this usability. I don't know if this would be possible. However, if it was able to scan or emulate bigger files, then it would be safer for a company using it."
"We have noticed a slight performance hit when the Threat Emulation and Extraction features were enabled, but the protection trade-off is worth it for us."
"Many years back an update caused an issue with the firewall. However, Palo Alto not only informed us of said issue, they also sent an update that fixed the issue before I even had time to log in to determine if the issue affected our services."
"Palo Alto Networks WildFire could improve by adding support for manual submission of suspicious files and URLs. Additionally, it would be an advantage to add rule-based analysis. Currently, it uses only static and AI. We need to be able to analyze archive files."
"The cyber security visibility and forensics features to receive more information about incidents could improve in Palo Alto Networks WildFire."
"It's not really their problem, it's a problem across the board. There will always be problems with interrupted traffic. We have to set it up where we're playing a middle man game where we're stripping it out, looking at it, and then putting it back together and sending it on its way. That requires CPU cycles. And there's some overhead with that."
"They should make their user interface a little more user-friendly."
"There are some formats that the solution cannot support ."
"There are more specialized solutions that compete with Wildfire. Therefore, they need to work on their machine learning and AI to be more competitive."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
More Check Point SandBlast Network Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point SandBlast Network is ranked 8th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 33 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Check Point SandBlast Network is rated 8.4, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point SandBlast Network writes "High detection with few false positives and able to handle large volumes of data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Check Point SandBlast Network is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Trellix Network Detection and Response and Symantec Advanced Threat Protection, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and Zscaler Internet Access. See our Check Point SandBlast Network vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.