We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."We are a visual effects company, and there have been a number of high profile security issues in our industry. This has brought us to a higher standard of security, which our clients are very keen on these days."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"Some of the valuable features are the firewall, IPS, web filter, and gateway capabilities. Additionally, it is easy to use and flexible."
"It's quite comfortable to handle the FortiGate firewall."
"The application control features, such as Facebook blocking and Spotify blocking, are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is URL filtering."
"I like Fortinet FortiGate's antispam filter, SPN, and clustering features."
"Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable."
"The solution provides a centralized management console for easy administration and monitoring of security policies and events, making it easy for the security team."
"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."
"Identity awareness, URL filtering, IDS, DLP, Content Filtering, VPN, and Application Control are all excellent."
"Advanced check prevention is a great feature that provides threat intelligence at speed."
"The product gives analytic reports."
"One of the main characteristics that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has given us is granularity and visibility."
"The solution is reliable."
"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has a beautiful threat emulation different from the market."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"The filtering was very good."
"The most valuable feature for us was to implement negligent functionality, to direct functionality to viewer control and application control so we could disconnect, and at the same time, we installed checkpoints. We disconnected our proxy."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"My only complaint about FortiGate is a lack of QinQ VLAN tunneling. I haven't found this feature in any Fortinet product. You can do this on all Cisco routers, including the smaller models. However, QinQ isn't available on the biggest, most expensive Fortinet units. They still don't have that. I think now we're on software version 6.0, and they still haven't found a solution for QinQ. It isn't a dealbreaker, but that's my main complaint."
"There are some complex administration tasks in their administration portal. That needs to be improved."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"Lacks training for new features."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"The threat scanning system should categorize the level of threats to enhance reliable data interpretation."
"Check Point has a history of moving fast with software release and upgrade cycles which are difficult to keep up with at times."
"There are some usability issues we'd like to see improved."
"Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM."
"The initial deployment using the ARM template in Azure was straightforward, but migrating to Terraform added complexity, although we managed to make it work."
"Its architecture and user interface need improvement. The user experience for this solution also needs to be improved, particularly in implementation, management, and operations."
"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."
"We have Microsoft CASB cloud app security and it's one of the least compatible firewalls. They really need to look at this, as both Check Point and Microsoft are major players. Why aren't they compatible? If we had Palo Alto then we wouldn't have this problem."
"What has been the issue of firewalls is they ask me for policies and content filtering application control and all these features that are now part of Harmony."
"The interface needs improvement."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"As we don't have a representative of Check Point in Mozambique, this makes it very difficult when we have some issues to resolve."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"The solution could be improved if there was a better way to report. The reporting functionality is not really good. Even though it's not the major function. Maybe adding a way to make a custom report."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 117 reviews while Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 19 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is rated 8.2. 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 Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] writes "Great firewalls, VPN, and Intrusion prevention capabilities". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is most compared with .
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.
Hi,
I've been working with gateprotect UTM recently. It's cost effective and much easy to work with compared to Fortinet and Checkpoint UTM.
http://www.gateprotect.com/en/Products/easy-use-eGUI
With the quick guide packed with screen shots, and clear simple instructions, you'll get to know how easy and simple it is to get the gateprotect UTM up and running in no time.
http://www.gateprotect.de/landing/start/start-en.html
Also note gateprotect UTM has been identified as a top choice for SMB in Gartner UTM firewall survey, which makes it a reliable product/solution.
http://www.gateprotect.com/en/gateprotect-identified-top-choice-small-medium-sized-businesses-gartner-utm-firewall-survey-0
http://www.gateprotect.com/en/gateprotects-positioning-gartner-magic-quadrant
Go for checkpoint
regards
kapil yadav
Hi
Both options are good but i would recommend the Cyberaom as i have had a
chance to work with it before.
Other options is Cisco Ironport .
Regards
Brian
Hi Russell,
I advise you to go with Sophos if not I advise you to go with Fortinet.
Did you ask your team to check Sophos demo I sent?
Regard
Maroun Jean Abboud
Mobile : 00961 70943122
Skype :maroun_abboud1
Both devices are good. Checkpoint is one of the market leader who gives a
good UTM solution. Fortinet is cheaper when compare to checkpoint and
flexible.
You may try the Paloalto which gives more attention on zero day attacks.
Thanks & Regards /*Ramesh M*
At this point in time all of the major firewall vendors marketing Next-Gen firewalls provides similar features. I recently participated in a 2 day meeting with sales and engineers with Fortinet. I have to say Fortinet has come a long way in the last few years and am beginning to like their product more and more. In terms of feature set the two products are nearly identical.
When comparing the two vendors there a clear separation in which product focus is clear. Fortinet is a major winner in their smaller units and provide the most bang for your buck. When central management with datacenter and enterprise sized firewalls are required you will find Checkpoint is the leader. In your question you mention CheckPoint UTM. When mentioning this I immediately think of the UTM-1N (old Model) or 620 (New Model). This is a standalone unit and is in the $500.00 - $800.00 range. A comparable unit would be a Fortinet FG-30D. These are the lower end units and I would not recommend them for a solution involving the number of product blades/features you have listed. I have a FotiWifi-60D for my home and it works quite well. I have all the blades configured and enabled. In my home we have 3 sometimes 4 occupants running games and/or streaming video constantly. We average 90GB of internet traffic a month. I have found the FortiWifi-60D able to keep up with the load but at times does peak in CPU and Memory.
A major difference between Fortinet and Checkpoint is their GUI. I find the Checkpoint GUI to be much more intuitive and easier adapt to for new users. Fortinet on the other hand, excels in the CLI with a Cisco/Avaya mixed interface and help structure. Checkpoint is Linux based and almost any Linux command functions on their systems, however, there is limited tab completion and no mid command assistance.
In regards to the firewall blade aka port based firewall I do not see one vendor being better than the other. I would leave this as a preference for what you are used to and what works best for you.
I am going to lump Web Filtering, Layer7- App Filtering together. Both Fortinet and Checkpoint have powerful next-gen capabilities. Both vendors approach web filtering application filtering in a similar way. Utilizing category based URLs and Applications with recommended risk levels. Fortinet published their application/web catalogs at http://www.fortiguard.com. Checkpoint published their URL categorization at https://www.checkpoint.com/urlcat/main.htm and Application Catalog at http://appwiki.checkpoint.com/appwikisdb/public.htm. At this time I can confirm Checkpoint has 6,578 applications identified while Fortinet has roughly 3,500 (Please confirm with your sales rep on this number as I got it from their catalog’s last displayed number of applications and it could have been a display limit rather than the total identified).
I do not have experience with Checkpoint’s IPS and Antivirus in an implemented production use so I can’t provide am accurate comparison. Based on Fortinet’s demos and my experience I would say that it is a comprehensive product. Due to Fortinet’s market (Non-enterprise businesses) and their licensing model (comprehensive of all features) they have a higher rate of discovery, writing a signature, and deploying it than Checkpoint. Also if you purchase the FortiSandbox (enterprise class product) you will have a good result for zero-day attacks.
In the VPN space I currently have a preference for CheckPoint. I find that their approach is very simple, easy to understand, and reliable. Fortinet provides a Wizard based configuration for their VPN tunnels as well as a manual creation process. I find the approach to be more complicated than it needs to be.
Note on Sizing… When it comes to FortiGate if you can afford it start your specs at FG-100D. I have found the lower models to have some quirks. If you are looking for a centrally managed solution Checkpoint includes base central management with all of their models starting at 1100. If you are going to centrally manage your firewalls I would suggest purchasing a VM based Open Server for management and logging. The equivalent would be a FortiManager.
I hope this helps,
Christopher L. Butler
Christopher L. Butler CCP-Network, CCA-Netscaler
We have chosen Fortinet after a long evaluation effort, while CheckPoint was our next best option. So you can't go terribly wrong with either. The reason we chose Fortinet is that it provided us a better bang for the buck. Be careful, however, with the advertized throughput of Fortinet devices as you often get only 50-70% of the advertized value, so size your devices accordingly.
One thing to consider is that UTMs are often not as good as a dedicated product, especially when it comes to web proxies. You should carefully consider your requirements and compare them with the capabilities of the UTMs you are considering. One tricky issue we are facing is web proxies for mobile devices, and there we are considering a cloud-based web proxy solution.
As far as dollars per protection, I would say Fortinet is your solution. I found this article pretty helpful: http://www.itgweb.com/blog/the-top-10-reasons-to-choose-a-fortinet-next-generation-firewall