We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Juniper SRX Series Firewall based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point NGFW is highly recommended for its extensive security features, convenient centralized management, and impressive virtualization capabilities. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is well-known for its user-friendly interface, effortless usage, and excellent support.
Check Point should focus on improving integration, upgrading hardware, reducing costs, and enhancing stability. Juniper needs to work on capacity scalability, pricing strategy, reporting capabilities, user interface, device reliability, and feature enhancements.
Service and Support: The customer service for Check Point NGFW has garnered varying opinions, with some customers finding it helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement. Juniper SRX Series Firewall's customer service is generally deemed satisfactory, with customers appreciating its helpfulness and knowledge. However, there have been occasions where response times were slower and the need for escalation arose.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point NGFW's initial setup can be complex and may need expertise and experience for specific configurations and migrations. Juniper SRX Series Firewall generally has a simple setup process, although it may require CLI experience and coordination with the vendor.
Pricing: Check Point NGFW is known for its expensive setup cost, particularly when compared to other options. Users have found the process of adding new licensing to existing devices to be complex, especially for larger enterprise-level devices. Juniper SRX Series Firewall offers a more reasonable and affordable setup cost. Its setup process is straightforward, and the pricing is considered reasonable.
ROI: Check Point NGFW offers cost savings, simplicity, and effective security enforcement, providing peace of mind once the protection level is understood. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a valuable investment, delivering positive returns and enhanced security features.
Comparison Results: Based on the review answers, the Check Point NGFW is preferred over the Jun SRX Series Firewall. Check Point NGFW offers comprehensive security features such as URL filtering, intrusion prevention systems, identity and access management, and application control capabilities. It also provides centralized management and virtualization features, stability, ease of use, and scalability. Despite its higher pricing, Check Point NGFW is considered more reliable and secure. Additionally, its customer service and support are generally satisfactory.
"Security management tool that's easy to integrate and easy to work with. No issues found with its stability and scalability."
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"There is an easy process for configuring it, and it is straightforward to implement the device from scratch."
"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."
"The application control features, such as Facebook blocking and Spotify blocking, are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the VDOM, which allows the customer to have multiple firewalls in a single campus."
"From the logs, you can trace back to the rule with a click, which makes it easy to investigate cases."
"The biggest thing is the central management. It is quite good and allows us to manage the different firewalls from it. We can implement and configure many firewalls and push our policies to them as well."
"Check Point's most useful feature is threat prevention and extraction. It was tough to manage seven firewalls and a perimeter solution for IPS, anti-malware, anti-bot, and sandboxing."
"I like the dashboard, redundancy, log analysis, threat prevention and ISP, and VPN."
"We have not had any issues with the firewall."
"The security posture assessment with two-factor authentication has saved more time and commercial costs by avoiding deploying having to deploy another solution."
"Check Point NGFW is easy to use, flexible and provides good performance. The security of the product is excellent, we do not have to do a lot of patching or upgrades because of vulnerabilities."
"What gives me the most value is undoubtedly the security that the anti-bot and anti-virus blades provide."
"On a scale from one to ten, one being the worst and ten being the best I'd give Juniper SRX an overall rating of eight because of its' competitive price."
"It is a part of the infrastructure when we're selling Juniper. That's what clients are familiar with and that's what they rely on."
"The solution is stable, inexpensive, and works well for medium size companies."
"It helped us with its routing capabilities which eased the cost, because otherwise I would have had to take a router and firewall, and then integrate it. With this, however, it was an integration of firewall and routing services all together in a single product. That was one thing that I loved about it."
"I like the Junos OS, which has been very good for me. It's very clever."
"It uses many applications, like antivirus blocking and web filtering."
"There is a lot of flexibility in how you can commit, check, and back out of a configuration."
"The rollback option and Commit Confirmed are great features. They give us the security to change configurations without downtime."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"I would like to see more advanced developments of a wireless controller in the future."
"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."
"There can be more security in hybrid implementations. When a customer has a hybrid environment where some parts are in the cloud, we need a consistent security solution for such scenarios."
"The solution could be more secure and stable."
"Their software support needs improvement. I would prefer to have better support for bug fixes. Sometimes, we open a ticket, and it is very difficult to get a solution. Specifically, we are not at all happy with their support for load balancing."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"There are issues with stability while upgrading devices with hotfixes."
"The end-user VPN could be improved. It could benefit from some modification."
"The product could provide an easier user interface and management, by combining all functions (network and policy configuration) into one single application rather than split it into different applications."
"In a VPN setup, we have Internet connection via Check Point. The connectivity is not turnkey like competing devices. We have not yet terminated our site-to-site VPN because things are fluctuating right now and Check Point needs to be upgraded. Also, their troubleshooting needs to be improved for this."
"The antivirus Check Point offers could be better when compared to competitors' firewalls. Updates should be more frequent."
"The perimeter antivirus can be improved. It's not as good as other leaders."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the application control and the visibility. I'd like granularity where you can have all the levels of policies that are defined, including the intel threat. It depends on what kind of intel threat the company has."
"Initially, we faced a few challenges with firmware. Later this was addressed with jumbo hotfixes."
"It could have features that other products support like blade options and stand-alone endpoint security."
"It does have its nuances in terms of deployment. There are always areas to make something easier or more intuitive or make the system auto-negotiate more with existing hardware."
"We purchased three devices and all three have been replaced under RMA."
"In the future, I would like to see the UI more responsive"
"While the GUI is pretty good on the Juniper side, there can still be tweaks made to it that will make it even better."
"It should be easier to escalate support tickets."
"Juniper SRX Series Firewall has to improve its web content site, like web filtration."
"The web interface on Juniper SRX is just a short conversion from Junos OS CLI; this is not very suitable for users with little expertise/"
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 276 reviews while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 18th in Firewalls with 86 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and Meraki MX, whereas Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Meraki MX. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Juniper SRX Series Firewall report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors, best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors, and 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.
