In summary, while Juniper vSRX is praised for its security features, performance, and integration capabilities, users have highlighted areas for improvement such as usability and interface issues. On the other hand, CloudGuard Network Security is appreciated for its firewall capabilities, user-friendly interface, and excellent customer support, but users have suggested enhancements in integration, setup process, and advanced threat intelligence features. Overall, both products offer valuable network security solutions with their unique strengths and weaknesses.
The summary above is based on 82 interviews we conducted recently with Juniper vSRX and CloudGuard Network Security users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"The application control features, such as Facebook blocking and Spotify blocking, are the most valuable."
"LinkGreat firewall capabilities"
"The wireless control is helpful."
"From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"The CLI is robust and powerful, enabling rapid, consistent changes via SSH."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the rules and quality of service."
"I really like the captive portal feature for our guest network. It has nice VLAN features in terms of separating our network. The anti-virus is also good."
"We find all the features valuable, particularly the firewall, application control, URL filtering, and HTTPS detection."
"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."
"Advanced check prevention is a great feature that provides threat intelligence at speed."
"Check Point CloudGuard technical support is good."
"I like the tool's ability to manage cloud traffic locally without routing it through our data centers."
"The features of the solution which I have found most valuable are its flexibility and agility. It's a fully scalable solution, from our perspective. We can define scaling groups and, based on the load, it will create new instances. It's truly a product which is oriented toward the cloud mindset, cloud agility, and this is a great feature."
"Customers appreciate the CME plugin for automatically understanding assets within the cloud. This information appears in the manager, allowing users to tag the assets and adjust policies and rules accordingly."
"The central management feature is a big plus, allowing us to manage both local and cloud gateways from one platform."
"The features we found most valuable are using the IDS and IPS during protection. The application filtering feature is great."
"We like the solution’s protocol and its dashboard system."
"The authentication part is seamless and easy for people."
"The architecture of the OS in Juniper is very good. It's flexibility, scalability, and the technicality is also good."
"It's a very powerful solution and the firewalls offer high performance"
"The technical support has been good."
"The initial setup is pretty simple."
"Juniper is more flexible with the commit check and the commit confirmed command. The design of the forwarding and contract plan in the operating system is very important for the performance when we have very big traffic."
"The UTM filtering needs improvement."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"The initial setup is complex."
"It is stable, but its stability can be improved."
"It could use better throughput on some of the smaller boxes for the branch offices."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"It should be more stable. There should be full integration within Fortinet products themselves as well as with other third-party products. Especially when you're not dealing with SIEM and the correlation of the security box, we want Fortinet to be able to share that information with as many other products as it can."
"At CPX, we heard that we can see all the things on the same platform. That is what we have been asking for, and hopefully, we are going to start seeing it this year."
"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."
"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security could improve by making it easier to configure."
"I haven't used CloudGuard Network Security in the past couple of years as I moved out of the network security role. However, 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."
"As an administrator, I can say that among all of the Check Point products I have been working with so far, the Virtual Systems solution is one of the most difficult."
"The cost needs improvement as it is currently quite expensive."
"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."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"Fortinet is more user friendly than Juniper. In terms of remote access, I actually prefer using Fortinet. It's much easier to configure."
"We worked with Cisco's support and Juniper's support and there are some differences, to be honest, Cisco is more available and is more competent at addressing our cases."
"Juniper vSRX is expensive."
"The GUI interface needs improvement."
"We have some weird errors and some weird behavior on the solution occasionally. The device gets buggy without anyone touching it. It would work and then suddenly stop. Sometimes you need to just move the cards out and restart it again, and it will work. The solution itself, the hardware and the software, there must be some bugs that need to be dealt with."
"The security feature must be improved."
"There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the GUI because it isn't very good."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 119 reviews while Juniper vSRX is ranked 27th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Cisco Secure Firewall and Zscaler Cloud Firewall. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Juniper vSRX report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
