We performed a comparison between Check Point IPS and Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It protects against specific known exploits but also, with SandBlast integration, it is able to protect against unknown or zero-day attacks at the perimeter level."
"It is also worth noting that many IPS signature comes with detailed background about the vulnerability, and potentially how the vulnerability would affect the network security."
"The solution is user-friendly and the interface is easy to configure."
"I can generate reports for management automatically based on the threats of the last day/week/whatever is needed."
"Overall, it give me a lot of insight into my network that I didn't have before."
"The product's initial setup is easy."
"What I like best about Check Point IPS is that it can prevent attacks. I also like that it has a log feature."
"Check Point helps reduce downtime and costs associated with detected cyberattacks and can block those threats to ensure protection from any significant damage that may be caused within the organization."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature is that the product can do everything in a single device, including the firewall, rules, and the PBL. It also has good routing and switching."
"Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB is easy to use, easy to operate, and easy to edit."
"Being able to manage blacklists and whitelists easily is very useful, especially for internal access and limiting outbound access."
"Prohibited URLs can be listed by category."
"The Palo Alto solution has improved our organization by providing threat protection across a variety of internet connections. Our company also gets valuable insights regarding threat analysis."
"It's allowed us to have better visibility and protection from threats."
"The only thing they could maybe improve is that we notice right away that the performance decreases when we enable the IPS, especially beyond the CPU and memory usage. If you want to enable the IPS and you have a lot of traffic, it can have an impact. The performance could be improved."
"In my opinion, the Check Point software engineers should works on the performance of the blade - when it is activated with the big number of the protections in place, the monitoring shows us the significant increase in the CPU utilization for the gateway appliances - up to 30 percents, even so we are cherry-picking only the profiles that we really needed."
"What I would like to improve in IPS would be the capacity of the hardware. I would also like to be able to sort signatures by severity. This would greatly impact how well I can manage my environment."
"Setting up Check Point IPS isn't easy, but it's not too complex, either. I rate it seven out of 10 for ease of setup. Generally, customers cannot do it themselves. They need an integrator."
"When exceptions need to be done for certain profiles, it is easy to get them done, however, implementation on some general ones may cause some extra work as the IPS is not easy to overwrite."
"There are a lot of false positives. I would like to see integration with some kind of network detection and response in order to make some automation on IPS configuration."
"The hardware-based version of Check Point IPS could be more scalable. Right now, it's not scalable."
"We have a lot of false positives and the list of IPs are not up to date in terms of their location."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"One way Palo Alto can improve is by offering sandboxing. I don't know if they currently offer a sandboxing feature together with the firewall or not. They should provide secure sandboxing with the firewalls."
"We have had some challenges with making Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB work with ELK stack."
"Performance monitoring could use improvement."
"An area for improvement would be the technical support, which can be slow."
"It is an expensive solution and not everyone has the budget for it."
"For hosting sites like Blogspot, they host sites that should be in different categories, but get lumped together in general. There needs to be more granularity or multiple categorizations."
More Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point IPS is ranked 3rd in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 45 reviews while Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB is ranked 19th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS). Check Point IPS is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point IPS writes "Great for detection and access with the capabilities of defining specific rules". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB writes "Provides regular updates with an auto download option; prohibited URLs can be listed by category ". Check Point IPS is most compared with Darktrace, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Cisco NGIPS and Fortinet FortiGate IPS, whereas Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Zscaler Cloud IPS, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Trend Micro Deep Discovery and Splunk User Behavior Analytics. See our Check Point IPS vs. Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB report.
See our list of best Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) vendors.
We monitor all Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) 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.
