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."Their interface is very easy to use, it is without bugs."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"What I like the most is the configuration and that it's simple, and straightforward to maintain."
"Initial setup is easy to configure."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"This is a quality product with ok support, and it is better than the competition we've tried."
"There are lots of features and most of them are deployed for internet security. Users are protected if they accidentally go to some malicious sites."
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"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."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"pfSense allows us to spread the hours of connection and do the filtering on the pfSense site."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are security, user-friendliness, and helpful online management."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well."
"Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security."
"Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall."
"It works. I put pfSense in, and it works. I can't think of any trouble I ever had with it. It runs on heat-sensitive appliances. They don't need a fan, so they don't overheat. It is affordable, fast, and very high-speed. It is built on BSD Unix, and it pretty much runs on any Intel processor."
"It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member."
"The license renewal process, annual renewal price, and the web application firewall features should be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient filtering."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"They've become quite expensive."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"Fortinet FortiGate should improve the VPN tokens."
"Fortinet could improve the windows opener or the virtual IP solutions for opening windows. The virtual IP settings need improvement as firewalls are trending in new development directions."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"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."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"The interface needs improvement."
"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."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"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."
"We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs."
"I would like to see pfSense integrate WireGuard. Currently, pfSense uses OpenVPN, and there's nothing wrong with it, but WireGuard is a lot leaner and meaner."
"The solution could improve by having centralized management and API support online."
"It requires more attention to provide a better alternative for open source to small government or educational institutions with reduced budgets in terms of technology."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"The solution could always work at being more secure. It's a good idea to continue to work on security features and capabilities in order to ensure they can keep clients safe."
"The integration could be improved."
"Needs services on additional features, such as managing inventory and generating reports."
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, KerioControl, Sophos UTM 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.