We performed a comparison between Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] and Netgate pfSense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The interface is very good."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The interface is very user-friendly and I like it very much."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"We can use our devices to check all of the perimeters. It secures email websites."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"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 UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"The filtering was very good."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location."
"My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Creation of certificates and the facility to administer services are valuable features."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are the reports, monitoring, filtration, and blocking incoming and outgoing traffic."
"pfSense allows us to spread the hours of connection and do the filtering on the pfSense site."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"They need faster serviceability and more security features."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"Compared to some other products, the DLP is not at par for the moment."
"I would like to see more advanced developments of a wireless controller in the future."
"It could use better throughput on some of the smaller boxes for the branch offices."
"The integration with third-party tools may be something that they should work on."
"Its customer service could be better."
"The interface needs improvement."
"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."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"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."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"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."
"It is not centrally managed, where you log into the website and can see all your services there. We would like to be able to see is all the configurations from a central interface on all our pfSenses."
"The GUI could use more “bells and whistles”. It's got plenty of info for a Sysadmin but some people like shiny things."
"As an open-source solution, there are so many loopholes happening within the product. By design, no one is taking ownership of it, and that is worrisome to me."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
"The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall."
"It needs better parsing of logs. At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve."
Earn 20 points
Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 19 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] writes "Great firewalls, VPN, and Intrusion prevention 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 UTM-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall.
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.