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."The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"We use a southern institution that's audited for IT security and the reporting that automatically comes off the unit makes it much easier to meet compliance standards and makes it easier as far as the amount of time that has to be spent to compile that information. If you get your reporting set up correctly when you initially set it up, you just select the one you want and hit print. The auditing trail on it is the best feature."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"I am "headache free" that I don't have to categorize all the websites and that security has been pre categorized by the people, and that the services are getting updated. At least one part of my problem is over."
"The solution is stable."
"Security solution with a straightforward and quick setup. It's a stable and scalable product."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use."
"I find it really useful that CloudGuard supports all the main players on the Public Clouds market including AWS, GCP, and Azure, as well as some exotic ones like Alibaba Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and IBM Cloud."
"The solution is reliable."
"What's most valuable to me is that it's a contiguous solution that aligns well with the components that we've relied on and trusted from a traditional hardware, firewall, and unified threat management system. My engineers and analysts don't have to learn another platform. We have already entrusted our security controls to Check Point for perimeter and physical security, and now we can do so at the virtual layer as well, which is key to us."
"A unique architecture makes this product stand out from other solutions."
"The central management feature is a big plus, allowing us to manage both local and cloud gateways from one platform."
"The tool's most valuable features for us are threat prevention, HTTPS inspection, and the Anti-Bot blade. Threat prevention helps to protect our assets from threats. HTTPS inspection ensures secure communication, and the Anti-Bot blade is particularly helpful in detecting C2 servers, enhancing our ability to identify malicious activities and protect our network."
"Auto-scaling and zero touch are valuable features."
"It offers remarkable flexibility in how we configure and utilize the resources."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"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."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"The solution is very robust."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"The customization could be improved. Cisco, for example, is much better at this. They need to work to be at least as good as they are."
"I would like to see improvements with the antivirus and IPS as they are not working properly all the time."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"The solution's framework needs to be frequently updated in order to have a stable solution."
"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."
"I would like Fortinet to add more automation to FortiGate."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"The pricing could always be better."
"The solution needs to support more hypervisors."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"Check Point has a history of moving fast with software release and upgrade cycles which are difficult to keep up with at times."
"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 connection to the on-premises management requires using the CLI. It's not just a click, and you cannot edit in the management to prepare everything. You need to do it online and in real time. After that, you must execute a script, and then you should be happy that it appears in the management."
"At the cost level, the solution is somewhat expensive."
"CloudGuard functions just like any other firewall. It functions very well. The only thing that could maybe be improved would be to integrate some tools that are not integrated with the SmartConsole, like the SmartView Monitor that we need to open on a different application to access."
"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."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"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."
"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."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"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."
"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."
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