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."User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"Our project needs to link two sides through the internet. One of these was in Cairo and the other in another city. We used FortiGate as the integrating solution between the two locations, i.e. the Fortinet 30E & 100E."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"It is user friendly, and has all the features you need."
"The most valuable features are simplicity, management, and that it's constantly evolving."
"The most valuable feature is the web filter."
"The simplicity of the configuration and the stability of the product are most valuable. The VPN concentrator is very useful."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"The solution is very robust."
"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 databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"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."
"It is much simpler than other solutions such as Fortinet."
"I can manage it easily by myself."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary."
"I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable."
"We can run it on any hardware."
"The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing."
"The initial setup was straightforward, therefore I wanted to continue using the product."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"The solution needs to improve its integration with cybersecurity."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"Its price could be better."
"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."
"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."
"The interface needs improvement."
"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."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"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."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"It would be great to add more to security."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"It should integrate with LDAP, Active Directory, etc, to improve the way in which the traces and connections of each IP, or user connected through the firewall, are shown."
"If a user doesn't have a large amount of experience in Linux systems, they will have problems using this solution. Users need to be highly skilled in troubleshooting competency. Users who do not have such skills will find the product difficult to use."
"The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall."
"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.
