We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security provides valuable features like VPN Blade, IPS Blade, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade. pfSense is appreciated for its capacity to block IP addresses, user-friendly dashboards, and open-source nature.
Check Point could enhance its support system, cluster creation on AWS, data protection visibility, DLP feature, user interface, integration with other security solutions, cost reduction, documentation, and on-prem deployment flexibility. pfSense could improve instructional videos, stability, mobile application, GUI usability, updates, threat handling, FIPs compliance, log analysis, VPN capacity, documentation, user-friendliness, configuration processes, and SD-WAN integration.
Service and Support: Some customers appreciate the technical support provided by Check Point, while others express dissatisfaction with response time and global support. pfSense's customer service garners both positive and negative reviews. Some users commend the technical support they receive, while others rely on community resources for assistance.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is praised for its easy, simple, and straightforward initial setup. Users find it interactive, user-friendly, and effortless to configure. However, it may require technical expertise and proper guidelines from customer support. pfSense is generally regarded as easy and straightforward to set up, with a simple installation process. The timeframe for completion varies from as little as 15 minutes to a few days, depending on the user's familiarity with firewall and network concepts.
Pricing: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is recognized for its high price, however, it provides strong security measures and good value. pfSense is an open-source option that offers reasonable pricing and no extra expenses. However, there is a lack of available information concerning the exact costs associated with pfSense's licensing.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security provides improved performance and benefits for organizations, resulting in a higher ROI range of 80% to 85%. pfSense is highly regarded for its cost-effectiveness and affordability, enabling substantial savings.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the preferred option when compared to pfSense. Users find the initial setup of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security to be straightforward, and user-friendly. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security offers more valuable features including VPN, IPS, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade, which are highly appreciated for their compliance, intrusion protection, and productivity enhancement.
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"This product is definitely scalable."
"Fortinet FortiGate has many valuable features, such as IDS, and intrusion detection. It has security features that are in part with the technologies that are available in the market."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"Security solution with a straightforward and quick setup. It's a stable and scalable product."
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"The most valuable feature is the FortiManager for centralized management."
"The most valuable feature for us is the ability to run the gateways as virtual machines in our virtual data center. The tool protects the virtual data centers."
"We are using gateways, and I appreciate the high-availability gateways they have. They stand out more than the competitors."
"We have unified management. It is one of the advantages of this product."
"The tool's most valuable features are threat prevention and protection mechanisms."
"SSL/TLS traffic inspection features are used for advanced threat prevention against secure SSL traffic."
"It's a high-performance device. The network performance is also really good. We check how much time it takes for the servers. Our network performance has increased since using this solution."
"One of the main characteristics that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has given us is granularity and visibility."
"Additionally, the centralized reporting and management, accessible through a single pane of glass, offer consistency and efficiency across multi-cloud environments."
"I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"A very stable product that lasts over time, easy to understand, and administer."
"It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems."
"We can run it on any hardware."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more capabilities for troubleshooting VPN connections. For example, I do get some feedback about the current status, but I could use some history and logging of important events. The information is logged in our Syslog server, but I could use that information from the device. If they could provide a GUI to have some more insight on what's going with my VPN would be useful."
"Performance and technical support are the main issues with this solution."
"The support system could be improved."
"I think they need to improve more in order to be a competitor with the leaders of the field."
"I haven't had a single issue since using Fortinet."
"There are some cloud-based features that could be much more flexible than they currently are."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution. However, my issue is the performance only. When I use all the profiles, this affects the performance. From the beginning, I should have had a better sizing of the box."
"I would suggest that Fortinet add sandboxing to their solution."
"CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases."
"The deployment phase takes too much time."
"The threat scanning system should categorize the level of threats to enhance reliable data interpretation."
"The networking system updates, when delayed, can lead to misconfigurations and data loss."
"The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"The API integration is complex, which is an area that should be improved."
"The connection to the on-premises management requires using the CLI. It's not just a click, and you cannot edit in the management to prepare everything. You need to do it online and in real time. After that, you must execute a script, and then you should be happy that it appears in the management."
"The solution could be more user-friendly, and the graphical interface needs some work so that someone without an IT background can use the application. I would like the ability to manage the on-premise appliance from the cloud. When I'm not in the office, it would be great to connect to the pfSense server and administer the network remotely."
"Network monitoring and device inventory could use some improvements. I'm using SpiceWorks for this because it never really worked in pfSense."
"Improve analysis of logs and dashboards (control panel) with improved alert functionality."
"It needs to be more secure."
"For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model."
"They can improve the dynamic of the input of IPs from outside."
"A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 117 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". 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 CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Cisco Secure Workload, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Netgate pfSense report.
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.