We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between these two products is that Check Point users feel that the tool’s VPN is hard to integrate. In addition, Check Point does not have an open-source version like pfSense does.
"The tool is a nice product and easy to handle. The software's user interface is also good. You can easily implement remote access in the solution."
"Good anti-malware and web filtering features."
"I like Fortinet FortiGate's antispam filter, SPN, and clustering features."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"The virtual firewall feature is the most valuable. We have around 1,500 firewalls. We did not buy individual hardware, and the virtual firewalls made sense because we don't have to keep on buying the hardware. FortiGate is easier to use as compared to Checkpoint devices. It is user friendly and has a good UI. You don't need much expertise to work on this firewall. You don't need to worry much about DCLA, commands, and things like that."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and the UI. It has always provided me with what I needed. I have no need for additional costs that other solutions have, such as Sophos."
"The pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"It is very flexible to use."
"With the new SmartTask offered in R80.40, we will be happy to configure some automatic control-functions."
"The product is flexible."
"From the logs, you can trace back to the rule with a click, which makes it easy to investigate cases."
"The event logs are relatively informative and can provide information on why traffic was accepted or rejected."
"The packet inspection capabilities are great."
"The security posture assessment with two-factor authentication has saved more time and commercial costs by avoiding deploying having to deploy another solution."
"One of the solution's best features include a packet-filtering firewall that examines packets in isolation."
"The management in Check Point is exceptional."
"An incomparable stability is achieved with other firewall systems."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"Firewall system for small, medium, and large data networks. It allows you to provide security to your environment: DMZ networks, LAN, WAN, etc."
"Open source and support are valuable. I have community support."
"It works. I put pfSense in, and it works. I can't think of any trouble I ever had with it. It runs on heat-sensitive appliances. They don't need a fan, so they don't overheat. It is affordable, fast, and very high-speed. It is built on BSD Unix, and it pretty much runs on any Intel processor."
"pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"The logging details need to be improved."
"This product could be improved with Active directory integration and better handling in IPsec and GRE Tunnels."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"There is room for improvement related to the logging and reporting aspect."
"They've become quite expensive."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding enhancements to FortiMail, FortiSOAR, and FortiDeceptor."
"The solution is very expensive."
"Scalability for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be improved. SD-WAN security for this solution also needs some improvement."
"The antivirus is less effective than its competitors' antivirus. The antivirus is good, but in other firewalls, such as Palo Alto, it's quite effective. Check Point should provide more output. Sometimes it provides comprehensive information and sometimes it doesn't."
"I have had some issues in the past with the desktop client being slow to come up for logging in, and then slow to respond to screen changes, however, overall, it really hasn't been too bad."
"The current model is predominantly hardware appliance-based, which can incur substantial costs"
"The product could provide an easier user interface and management, by combining all functions (network and policy configuration) into one single application rather than split it into different applications."
"The product or services can be improved from the cost and the pricing perspective."
"It would help if they were easier to deploy, without needing more technical people. It would be nice if we could just give basic information, how to connect, and that would be all, while the rest of the setup could be done remotely."
"The upgrading process takes too much time."
"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."
"Other solutions provide more scope for growth. For instance, we can have only 10 to 20 employees on VPN, but other solutions can support more users. We also have more capabilities to increase the performance of the solution."
"In an upcoming release, the reporting could be more user-friendly. For example, the reporting in graphs and charts for the host can be cumbersome."
"The product could offer more integrated plugins."
"The solution’s interface must be improved."
"Could be simplified for new users."
"If a user doesn't have a large amount of experience in Linux systems, they will have problems using this solution. Users need to be highly skilled in troubleshooting competency. Users who do not have such skills will find the product difficult to use."
"pfSense could improve by having a sandboxing feature that I have seen in SonicWall. However, maybe it is available I am not aware of it."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. 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 Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Azure Firewall and OPNsense, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Stormshield Network Security. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Netgate pfSense 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.