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."I'm pretty happy with its reliability. It is also very scalable."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"With FortiClient, you can easily connect when you are home, check out what you want to do, and connect to your network when you are not at work. You can switch on servers and you can check what is wrong."
"The solution can scale well."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The notable features that I have found most valuable are that it includes the antivirus, and also IPS, and even SD-WAN."
"The interface is very user-friendly and I like it very much."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"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."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"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."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"The filtering was very good."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are the reports, monitoring, filtration, and blocking incoming and outgoing traffic."
"Its reliability and cost-effectiveness stand out."
"pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home."
"The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security."
"Great extensibility of the platform."
"We've found the stability to be very good overall."
"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."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"The solution can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything."
"Web security solutions can be improved."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"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."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"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."
"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 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."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"As we don't have a representative of Check Point in Mozambique, this makes it very difficult when we have some issues to resolve."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals."
"The technical support needs to be improved."
"pfSense could improve by having a sandboxing feature that I have seen in SonicWall. However, maybe it is available I am not aware of it."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"I tried pfSense, and it has a big issue with file system consistency, and this is what drove me to OPNsense. The file system stability is quite a big issue for us. We have a lot of outages related to power issues, and OPNsense is much more stable on this side."
"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."
"It needs to be more secure."
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.