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.
"It's very easy to set up, it's very easy to make policies and, for an organization, that means you don't need IT expert in firewalls. You just need to have somebody who knows a little bit of IT, and that's it. With other products, you need someone with a "Masters" degree in firewalls."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"FortiGate firewalls are easy to manage through a user-friendly web interface. They also have advanced features like DDoS and DLP. However, I wouldn't recommend enabling all of these features on one device because it can cause performance issues."
"FortiGate improved our security. It's one of the best hardware firewalls."
"The management console is pretty simple, so anyone who understands networking can initially deploy the solution."
"The scalability is good in Fortinet FortiGate."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"Layer-3 firewall and routing are the most valuable features."
"It's a lightweight solution, requiring minimal storage, resources, and memory to operate effectively."
"The QoS blade is very good for controlling traffic such as Windows patches, mail traffic and other stuff."
"The product offers a robust and intuitive experience, catering to the essential needs of users."
"From the logs, you can trace back to the rule with a click, which makes it easy to investigate cases."
"The SmartView monitor and SmartReporter help us to monitor and report on traffic."
"Check Point is more expensive but easier to manage, and their presales and after-sale support are way better than Fortinet's."
"I like the SmartEvent feature. When we see a threat, SmartEvent can create a rule for that. SmartEvent works with the SmartCenter to block a threat attack with a block monitor. The SmartCenter has the management for all the firewalls and data centers in a single dashboard."
"By far, it's the best security solution one can adopt for their organization."
"I like the Junos OS, which has been very good for me. It's very clever."
"CLI: Junos CLI is very easy to use, and it is also very easy to find back items in the configuration and to change them."
"The virtualization feature is the most valuable feature. Sometimes customers are requesting a private connection using mobile data when they are connecting to remote sites."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper SRX is that it is plug-and-play. Additionally, it has a lot of capabilities in one device."
"Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a stable solution."
"The IPS functionality of Juniper SRX is useful in the telecom industry."
"From a protection perspective, it provides a network perimeter security function for our company."
"The user interface is good."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution."
"I use the FortiGate 60D model and realized the 300Mbps bandwidth limitation. Because it is a product that offers many services, I think it could have greater bandwidth capacity."
"There are just some services that aren't available. For example, the Ethernet or point-to-point protocols. They could add these services to their product offering - especially services for ISPs."
"I haven't had a single issue since using Fortinet."
"Technical support for this solution can be improved."
"The stability of Fortinet FortiGate could improve."
"The upgrading process takes too much time."
"I would like less CPU-intensive features to be introduced to replace the existing heavy-duty processes."
"The support team should be faster."
"It depends whether the problem is known to Check Point. If they are aware there is a problem, quite often it will then depend on which tech you finally land on if it's easier or harder to get to the root cause. The last issue was in India so that was pretty bad. It's easier if you get directly through to Tel Aviv or Ottawa, but you can't choose. Once they know what the issue is, it's pretty good. It pretty much depends on the engineer that you get. There are pretty good engineers and there are many engineers who are at just the starter level at Check Point who are not really into the stuff. Sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's easy, depending on the problem and the tech engineer you get."
"Geo-blocking would be very useful. There are too many attempts to infiltrate by non-country users. I can block access by IP address or IP network, however, a country-level blocking would be more useful and much quicker to implement."
"The area where Check Point can improve is the antivirus, as it only provides a small number of updates for it. Updates should be more frequent."
"The naming in the inline layers and ordered layers needs improvement. It makes things very complicated. I've seen quite a lot of people saying that. For audit policies, it is okay since it's very simple to see. However, this area is for very large organizations, which have too many policies, and they need to share all these policies. For small to medium-sized businesses, they don't need it. Even if somebody has 500 rules, if they try to use it, it can be very confusing."
"In our particular case, we have different web applications developed by the same organization, however, that requires a specialized protection element such as a WAF. Having this service or feature within the same solution would be very valuable."
"To compare with Fortinet, Juniper needs to improve their security features."
"Improvements can be made to the GUI. The GUI can be improved by creating policies to handle IPS requirements. The configuration should be a one-step process. This would make it easier to complete the setup to register the time of operation."
"Juniper SRX's UI is very bad."
"Juniper SRX could improve by adding an IPX feature."
"I would like to have a better web UI for administration. Juniper could simplify the web UI and make it more compatible with mobile devices."
"The solution's initial setup process was lengthy as I was new to Juniper."
"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."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 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.
