We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In terms of security, we have not experienced any security flaws or loopholes, and it has proven to be quite stable."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"Fortinet FortiGate appears to be scalable."
"It is a good source for firewall protection."
"The SD-WAN feature is the most valuable. This feature evolved from link load balancing. It has helped us in terms of our uptime and privatizing applications whenever we experience an outage. The SD-WAN feature has been a plus for us. Two-factor authentication has allowed us to add more users in terms of remote working. We have two-factor authentication for remote workers to authenticate them before they get on the network."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ability to work in proxy mode, which other solutions, such as Palo Alto cannot. There are some features that are better that come at no extra license or subscriptions cost, such as basic SD-WAN. The DLT is useful, other solutions have the same feature too, such as Palo Alto."
"Fortinet FortiGate's most valuable features are ease of use, flexibility, and most of the configuration we can be done using the GUI. When we compare Fortinet FortiGate with other solutions the firewall policy are very easy to understand."
"Their interface is very easy to use, it is without bugs."
"We use Check Point to complete the network compliance rules."
"The most valuable features are application control, regulation, and threat prevention."
"The most valuable feature is the central management system through the Security Management Server. Apart from that, the graphical user interface helps us to do things easily."
"If you want to share traffic loads to both cluster members you can use the active-active feature, if you don't want to share traffic loads you can prefer active standby."
"The product offers a robust and intuitive experience, catering to the essential needs of users."
"I love the interface of R.80.30. The R.80 interface is very nicely thought out with everything in one place, which makes Check Point easier to use."
"Check Point has a really cool GUI."
"The AntiSpam/Mail blade was also one of the main reasons we went with this product since we hosted our email server locally. This was an extra layer of protection on top of the existing solution."
"The most valuable feature is the console management."
"The Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a scalable product."
"I found the initial setup process to be very simple and straightforward."
"I have two offices, and I can route the internet of both offices using the same product. The connectivity is great."
"One of the most valuable features is having the ability to cluster multiple firewalls even if they are different versions."
"The solution offers sandboxing, which can be integrated at any time."
"It is a scalable product. I know a customer who has deployed more than 4,000 firewalls in a single deployment."
"The people we deal with is a local partner in Cambodia and we can get good support from them."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"The process of configuring firewall rules appears excessively complex."
"The stability of Fortinet FortiGate could improve."
"With the addition of some features, it is possible that FortiGate can be used in all verticals."
"They need faster serviceability and more security features."
"Its filtering is sometimes too precise or strict. We sometimes have to bypass and authorize some of the sites, but they get blocked. We know that they are trusted sites, but they are blocked, and we don't know why."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"The biggest "gotcha" is that if the client purchases what they call the UTM shared bundle, which has unified threat management on both, it's not as easy to manage if you have more than one firewall."
"There is nothing more that I need in terms of improvement."
"I would like the graphic user interface to be easier to use. For example, the NAT policy should be easier to use. Check Point's NAT policy is somewhat confused compared to other competitors."
"Check Point solutions have always been more complex to deploy than their competitors."
"Check Point needs to work on hardware problems also."
"One feature I have yet to see implemented is authenticated email support for alerts generated via the GW or SMS."
"The VPN part was actually one of the most complex parts for us. It was not easy for us to switch from Cisco, because of one particular part of the integration: connecting the Check Point device to an Entrust server. Entrust is a solution that provides two-factor authentication. We got around it by using another server, a solution called RADIUS."
"Error logs can be more specific."
"The NAT services part needs improvement. It's not sophisticated. It needs functions like range assignment for NATing. The way you assign a list of IPs for NATing is too simple. It just allows you to use pools."
"They need to increase the local support here. There are also some bugs or fixes on which they need to work. They very well know about these bugs. In terms of licensing, I would like them to either increase the number of features in a single license or make licensing more flexible."
"My team is looking for more throughput and better integration with our security framework."
"The network interface could be better, and it could be cheaper."
"They should provide more details on potential cyber threats."
"The endpoint protection capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Next Generation Firewall's configuration could be improved."
"Making this solution easier to use would be an improvement."
"This solution would be improved with the inclusion of custom reporting."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 31st in Firewalls with 40 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good URL filtering with helpful technical support and good scalability". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and Sophos XGS, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Darktrace. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
See our list of best Firewalls 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.