We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and Fortinet FortiGate based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point is notable for its VPN Blade, IPS Blade, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade. It provides advanced threat prevention, centralized management, and a focus on cloud security. Fortinet FortiGate is commended for its all-inclusive bundle solution, user-friendly interface, and robust security capabilities.
For Check Point, there are areas that could be improved including cluster creation on AWS, data protection visibility, DLP feature, user interface, integration, cost reduction, documentation, and flexibility in deployment. Fortinet FortiGate could benefit from enhancements in SSL VPN, multi-factor authentication, reporting capabilities, GUI interface, software support, scalability, user interface, web application firewall and DDoS protection, troubleshooting of VPN connections, and protection against attacks and ransomware.
Service and Support: CloudGuard Network Security's customer service has received mixed feedback, with some customers expressing satisfaction with the technical support, while others have mentioned concerns regarding response time. Some Fortinet customers have found the support to be good, while others have felt the need for improvement.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point offers an initial setup that is straightforward and simple, although it may require technical expertise. The deployment time for this solution can range from one day to a few days. Fortinet FortiGate's setup is generally not too complex and straightforward, with deployment times varying from a few hours to two months.
Pricing: Check Point CloudGuard is known for its high setup cost, however, it provides excellent security and value. Fortinet FortiGate offers a reasonably priced and competitive setup cost, with a good balance between price and performance. That said, some users have mentioned that the renewal price for FortiGate is often higher than the initial purchase price.
ROI: CloudGuard Network Security has demonstrated a return on investment (ROI) ranging from 80% to 85%. Users have experienced increased benefits and found that management is easier compared to other options. Fortinet FortiGate has proven to be cost-effective, resulting in savings. Additionally, it has enhanced security measures, delivering positive outcomes.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard is the preferred choice when compared to Fortinet FortiGate. Users appreciate CloudGuard's user-friendly interface, ease of use, and comprehensive security features like VPN, IPS, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade. CloudGuard also offers scalability, stability, and a focus on cloud security.
"The query feature is going to be a game-changer for us as we move forward."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized dashboard, which is used for managing all of the Check Point Security Gateways."
"The most valuable feature I have found in CloudGuard Network Security is the flexibility to rebuild the firewall as needed."
"SSL/TLS traffic inspection features are used for advanced threat prevention against secure SSL traffic."
"The most valuable features are the ease of administration with the cloud management extension and the cloud licensing model."
"The product gives analytic reports."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the ease of use. It was not difficult to learn."
"Identity awareness, URL filtering, IDS, DLP, Content Filtering, VPN, and Application Control are all excellent."
"Centralized monitoring, policy management, and virtualized appliances allow us to take control over our public and private infrastructure."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use."
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"The interface is very good."
"Fortinet FortiGate is stable. It's used across all the countries, this is the way most multinationals run their system."
"Overall security features and performance routing is good."
"This product is definitely scalable."
"The next-generation firewall is great."
"The product can still grow."
"The business and product development team should introduce a high-end feedback collection mechanism and analyze the customer requirements constructively."
"New features have been introduced recently, but they have not yet been integrated into CloudGuard Vsec."
"Easier optimization techniques can definitely help with better performance of the OS, as using the vanilla software doesn't actually showcase the real capability of the software."
"The networking system updates, when delayed, can lead to misconfigurations and data loss."
"It needs to cover additional kinds of infrastructure, like containers and serverless options. It's somewhat limited in that area."
"The challenge mainly revolves around the slower functionality of virtual IP switching in Azure Virtual Network compared to on-premise solutions. On-premise, switching between clusters is faster, taking only a few seconds, while in Azure, it can extend up to five minutes. The downtime is a concern for us."
"If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Forcepoint in the Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it easily, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"I don't really have anything negative to say as far as Fortinet firewalls are concerned. If anything, they can support a user a little bit better. They can stop being so time-sensitive about how much time the support call has taken, and they can help you do it yourself."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"The UTM filtering needs improvement."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve by integrating the web application firewall and the DDoS protection part of the solution. Having a WAF feature, web application firewall, and proxy together would be a good benefit."
"The stability could be a bit better."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 3rd in WAN Edge with 120 reviews while Fortinet FortiGate is ranked 1st in WAN Edge with 306 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiGate is rated 8.4. 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 Fortinet FortiGate writes "It's a reliable solution that's easy to install and cheaper than competitors ". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Fortinet FortiGate is most compared with Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Fortinet FortiGate report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors, best WAN Edge vendors, and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all WAN Edge 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.
Hi,
I've been working with gateprotect UTM recently. It's cost effective and much easy to work with compared to Fortinet and Checkpoint UTM.
www.gateprotect.com
With the quick guide packed with screen shots, and clear simple instructions, you'll get to know how easy and simple it is to get the gateprotect UTM up and running in no time.
www.gateprotect.de
Also note gateprotect UTM has been identified as a top choice for SMB in Gartner UTM firewall survey, which makes it a reliable product/solution.
www.gateprotect.com
www.gateprotect.com
Go for checkpoint
regards
kapil yadav
Hi
Both options are good but i would recommend the Cyberaom as i have had a
chance to work with it before.
Other options is Cisco Ironport .
Regards
Brian
Hi Russell,
I advise you to go with Sophos if not I advise you to go with Fortinet.
Did you ask your team to check Sophos demo I sent?
Regard
Maroun Jean Abboud
Mobile : 00961 70943122
Skype :maroun_abboud1
Both devices are good. Checkpoint is one of the market leader who gives a
good UTM solution. Fortinet is cheaper when compare to checkpoint and
flexible.
You may try the Paloalto which gives more attention on zero day attacks.
Thanks & Regards /*Ramesh M*
At this point in time all of the major firewall vendors marketing Next-Gen firewalls provides similar features. I recently participated in a 2 day meeting with sales and engineers with Fortinet. I have to say Fortinet has come a long way in the last few years and am beginning to like their product more and more. In terms of feature set the two products are nearly identical.
When comparing the two vendors there a clear separation in which product focus is clear. Fortinet is a major winner in their smaller units and provide the most bang for your buck. When central management with datacenter and enterprise sized firewalls are required you will find Checkpoint is the leader. In your question you mention CheckPoint UTM. When mentioning this I immediately think of the UTM-1N (old Model) or 620 (New Model). This is a standalone unit and is in the $500.00 - $800.00 range. A comparable unit would be a Fortinet FG-30D. These are the lower end units and I would not recommend them for a solution involving the number of product blades/features you have listed. I have a FotiWifi-60D for my home and it works quite well. I have all the blades configured and enabled. In my home we have 3 sometimes 4 occupants running games and/or streaming video constantly. We average 90GB of internet traffic a month. I have found the FortiWifi-60D able to keep up with the load but at times does peak in CPU and Memory.
A major difference between Fortinet and Checkpoint is their GUI. I find the Checkpoint GUI to be much more intuitive and easier adapt to for new users. Fortinet on the other hand, excels in the CLI with a Cisco/Avaya mixed interface and help structure. Checkpoint is Linux based and almost any Linux command functions on their systems, however, there is limited tab completion and no mid command assistance.
In regards to the firewall blade aka port based firewall I do not see one vendor being better than the other. I would leave this as a preference for what you are used to and what works best for you.
I am going to lump Web Filtering, Layer7- App Filtering together. Both Fortinet and Checkpoint have powerful next-gen capabilities. Both vendors approach web filtering application filtering in a similar way. Utilizing category based URLs and Applications with recommended risk levels. Fortinet published their application/web catalogs at www.fortiguard.com. Checkpoint published their URL categorization at www.checkpoint.com and Application Catalog at appwiki.checkpoint.com At this time I can confirm Checkpoint has 6,578 applications identified while Fortinet has roughly 3,500 (Please confirm with your sales rep on this number as I got it from their catalog’s last displayed number of applications and it could have been a display limit rather than the total identified).
I do not have experience with Checkpoint’s IPS and Antivirus in an implemented production use so I can’t provide am accurate comparison. Based on Fortinet’s demos and my experience I would say that it is a comprehensive product. Due to Fortinet’s market (Non-enterprise businesses) and their licensing model (comprehensive of all features) they have a higher rate of discovery, writing a signature, and deploying it than Checkpoint. Also if you purchase the FortiSandbox (enterprise class product) you will have a good result for zero-day attacks.
In the VPN space I currently have a preference for CheckPoint. I find that their approach is very simple, easy to understand, and reliable. Fortinet provides a Wizard based configuration for their VPN tunnels as well as a manual creation process. I find the approach to be more complicated than it needs to be.
Note on Sizing… When it comes to FortiGate if you can afford it start your specs at FG-100D. I have found the lower models to have some quirks. If you are looking for a centrally managed solution Checkpoint includes base central management with all of their models starting at 1100. If you are going to centrally manage your firewalls I would suggest purchasing a VM based Open Server for management and logging. The equivalent would be a FortiManager.
I hope this helps,
Christopher L. Butler
Christopher L. Butler CCP-Network, CCA-Netscaler
We have chosen Fortinet after a long evaluation effort, while CheckPoint was our next best option. So you can't go terribly wrong with either. The reason we chose Fortinet is that it provided us a better bang for the buck. Be careful, however, with the advertized throughput of Fortinet devices as you often get only 50-70% of the advertized value, so size your devices accordingly.
One thing to consider is that UTMs are often not as good as a dedicated product, especially when it comes to web proxies. You should carefully consider your requirements and compare them with the capabilities of the UTMs you are considering. One tricky issue we are facing is web proxies for mobile devices, and there we are considering a cloud-based web proxy solution.
As far as dollars per protection, I would say Fortinet is your solution. I found this article pretty helpful: www.itgweb.com