We performed a comparison between Check Point Power-1 [EOL] and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."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."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"Fortinet FortiGate is stable. It's used across all the countries, this is the way most multinationals run their system."
"I have found Fortinet FortiGate to be scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the policy routing and application control."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"We are very happy with the general bandwidth agility we have seen from one website to another website."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"The VPN allows users to connect remotely and securely."
"The solution is scalable."
"The way that the solution quickly updates to adjust to threats is the solution's most valuable aspect. When there's a security attack, within five minutes, all Wildfire subscribers have access to updates so that all systems will be safe. Its threat prevention is way better than other vendor products."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"The most valuable features of the solution are user-friendliness, price, good security, and cloud-related options."
"Installing this product as a datacenter firewall for segregation and segmentation, and also configuring policies between zones has improved my organization."
"With this product, we receive the best monitoring and reports."
"Intuitive threat prevention and analysis solution, with a machine learning feature. Scalable, stable, and protects against zero-day threats."
"We would like to see a better training platform implemented."
"A couple of things I've seen that need improvement, especially in terms of a hard coding. The driver-level active moment really is out-of-the-box and we have to have contact the customer support and sometimes it is difficult to resolve."
"Vulnerability scanning could be improved."
"It should provide better visibility over the network and more information in the form of reports for the end users. Its installation should also be easier."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"The Web-filter in this solution is not very good."
"The UTM filtering needs improvement."
"They should make the rule sets more understandable for the end user. When you're trying to explain to somebody how a computer network is secured, sometimes it's difficult for an end user or customer to understand. If there was a way to make the terminology more accessible to the end user, the set up could be easier. They should translate the technical jargon to an easily relatable and understandable conversation for the end user, the customer, that would be brilliant. Particularly in an environment where the IT structure is audited regularly, there's always pressure from the auditor to up the standards and up the security and you get your USCERT's that come out and there's a warning about this and the customer will want to lock out so much and when you apply it they run into issue where they can't search the internet or print to their remote office. Of course they can't print to your remote office, they just locked it up. They should make the language more understandable for the customer. If there's a product out there that made the jargon understandable to John Q. Public, I would buy that."
"Multi-factor authentication would have been a plus in security at the time."
"The technical support response needs improvement."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity."
"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 product fails to offer protection when dealing with high-severity vulnerabilities, making it an area of concern where improvements are required."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
Earn 20 points
Check Point Power-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 2 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 58 reviews. Check Point Power-1 [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point Power-1 [EOL] writes "Good intrusion prevention, firewall, and VPN capabilities". 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 Power-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Check Point SandBlast Network.
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.