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."It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing."
"Whenever I need something, Fortinet improves and updates the software for me."
"Web filtering and two-factor authentication are great features."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"It's user-friendly and easy to operate."
"You can purchase switches and you don't need to do anything with them. You just put in the firewall and the switches get all the policies and rules that you already have in the firewall. With Fortinet, you just connect the FortiSwitch to the Fortinet and that's it."
"User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"The solution is very robust."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"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."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"The filtering was very good."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"pfSense is a nice product, and I find that there's a lot of information out there. There are some good tutorials on YouTube and other websites with helpful information."
"I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"I have found pfSense to be stable."
"Is good at blocking IP addresses."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are the reports, monitoring, filtration, and blocking incoming and outgoing traffic."
"We generally use it because it's cheap. When we need something more robust we use Barracuda and Sony Wireless Routers. For certain clients, we use pfSense because it's compatible with the VoIP platform."
"I would like to see improvements in the support from Fortinet. Here in the Philippines, whenever we have problems with a Fortinet product, we mostly ask for support from distributors and resellers and not directly from Fortinet."
"They should improve the interface to make it more user-friendly."
"The updates Fortinet provides are sometimes unstable."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more storage in the hardware for log data."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"We were not able to build a full-mesh VPN; however, I am not sure if this was the fault of Fortinet FortiGate."
"In some cases, its initial setup could be hard for customers."
"The solution's framework needs to be frequently updated in order to have a stable solution."
"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."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"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."
"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."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"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 user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"The stability could be improved."
"It was difficult to configure our web printer through the solution. This process could be easier. Additionally, integration with SD-WAN solution."
"It needs to be more secure."
"The GUI could use more “bells and whistles”. It's got plenty of info for a Sysadmin but some people like shiny things."
"The integration should be improved."
"We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized."
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.