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."Secure, user-friendly, stable, and scalable network security solution. Installation is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of FortiGate is FortiView which provides proactive monitoring."
"A strong point of FortiGate is that the graphical interface is complete and easy to use, especially if we think there is a list of operations that we are able to perform inside."
"FortiGate is flexible and easy to use."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"The most valuable features are the policies, filtering, and configuration."
"The stability of the solution is excellent, as it is with other Fortinet products."
"Fortinet FortiGate protects against internet-based threats, both internal and external. It is scalable, stable, easy to use, and easy to install."
"The product gives analytic reports."
"The feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable."
"The solution is reliable."
"The program is very stable."
"Check Point has pretty simple solutions, like the virtual appliance which you just download and it is imported into VMware and you just start using it."
"The VPN features in CloudGuard Network Security have been the most valuable for us."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"The tool's most valuable features are inspecting internet traffic and IPS. We can manage the firewall using shared policies from a single management server."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"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."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"The solution is very robust."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"A sandbox would be good in order to be able to inspect the emails containing spam and be able to validate the emails that contain malware, prior to delivering to the customer."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"We have an issue with hotel guest vouchers."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient filtering."
"With the reports, you can see it, and you can get good feelings so upper management can go, "Oh, wow. That looks pretty." However, it's very basic."
"It's meeting our needs at this time. If I could make it better, it would be by making it more standalone. That would be beneficial to us. I say that because our current platform for virtualization is VMware. The issue isn't any fault of Check Point, it's more how the virtualization platform partners allow for that partnership and integration. There has to be close ties and partnerships between the vendors to ensure interoperability and sup-portability. There is only so far that Check Point, or any security vendor technology can go without the partnership and enablement of the virtualization platform vendor as it relies on "Service Insertion" to maintain optimal performance."
"Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point."
"I would like to see more focus on east-west traffic inspection and AWS."
"This application can be more integrated with web application firewalls. Better integrations would provide more granularity, which would be helpful for focusing on the application itself and preventing attacks. It would be good to include the cross-domain search. If you have multiple firewalls that are managed on the same platform and you want to check who is using some particular objects or where a specific ID is being used, it should provide an option for this kind of search instead of having to check one by one on each firewall."
"The documentation could be much better."
"Check Point support, beyond CloudGuard, does need some improvement."
"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."
"The licensing structure is unclear, so a transparent and flexible licensing structure would be preferable."
"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."
"Specifically on the user experience, sometimes the set up of things, such as the VPN SSL, takes a lot of time to load and a lot of time to get up and running on every session."
"Technical support was very bad because the supplier who sold it to us, wasn't very supportive, and he wouldn't giving us direct links to the OEM."
"The interface needs improvement."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"As we don't have a representative of Check Point in Mozambique, this makes it very difficult when we have some issues to resolve."
"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."
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.
www.gateprotect.com
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.
www.gateprotect.de
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.
www.gateprotect.com
www.gateprotect.com
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 www.fortiguard.com. Checkpoint published their URL categorization at www.checkpoint.com and Application Catalog at appwiki.checkpoint.com 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: www.itgweb.com