We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between these two products is that Check Point users feel that the tool’s VPN is hard to integrate. In addition, Check Point does not have an open-source version like pfSense does.
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"The simplicity of the configuration and the stability of the product are most valuable. The VPN concentrator is very useful."
"It is quite easy to handle."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the APIs. They are the most widely known."
"The pricing is excellent. It's much less expensive than Cisco."
"Valuable features include the Web Application Firewall, and it even has DLP (data leak prevention)."
"I use it as well as a VM. We use it a lot because we have all fiber optic connections, so we could use almost all of that. The federation is beautiful because I can transfer all traffic to my main site where I can use just one link to the internet, and I can use it as a proxy as well. It is good to keep control and security."
"The configuration is one of the best features of this product."
"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."
"I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten."
"SmartCenter and SmartLog are the best platforms to manage firewall rules. SandBlast Zero-Day is very useful when encountering any security leaks."
"It has allowed us to grow in a safe way and in accordance with our particular needs."
"It creates granular security policies based on users or groups to identify, block or limit the usage of web applications."
"The feature I like the most is their central management, the Smart controller which you can use to manage all the firewalls from one location... Being able to access almost everything in one location — manage all your gateways and get all your logs — for me, is the best feature to work with."
"Improved service performance and availability through redundancy."
"We've found the stability to be very good overall."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks."
"The solution is very easy to use and has a very nice GUI."
"We like the fact that the product is open-source. It's free to use. There are no costs associated with it."
"I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"They've become quite expensive."
"The updates Fortinet provides are sometimes unstable."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"The firewall throughput or performance reduces drastically after enabling each module/blade."
"It would help if they were easier to deploy, without needing more technical people. It would be nice if we could just give basic information, how to connect, and that would be all, while the rest of the setup could be done remotely."
"The network automation and security automation could be better."
"The web UI for VSX could be better."
"The pricing could always be more competitive."
"One area that they should prioritize is enhancing security gateways for protection against cyberattacks."
"The support team should be faster."
"The only thing which I think should be improved is that training should be increased. In my position I also interview potential employees and I haven't found many people in the market, nowadays, who are familiar with the Check Point firewall. They are more familiar with Palo Alto and Cisco ASA and they are more comfortable with them."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great."
"Many people have problems setting up the web cache for the web system."
"I have been using WireGuard VPN because it is a lot faster and more secure than an open VPN. However, in the latest version of pfSense, they have removed this feature, which is one of the main features that I need. They should include this feature."
"Also, simplifying the rules for the GeoIP. Making it simpler to understand would be an improvement."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall."
"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."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 277 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. 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 Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Azure Firewall and OPNsense, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Stormshield Network Security. See our Check Point NGFW 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.