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.
"We have been able to offer several services to customers in a single box."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"The most valuable features are the policies, filtering, and configuration."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"It is a one box solution, which covers most of the edge device’s requirements."
"The most valuable features are SD-WAN, application control, IPS control, and FortiSandbox."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the analytics."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and there are several operating systems that can include the hardware capacities. In the newer releases, the resources were more useful because they were included in the operating system."
"Check Point NGFW has helped us to significantly reduce our risk of cyberattacks by providing comprehensive protection against a wide range of threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, phishing attacks, and zero-day threats."
"It filters unwanted traffic."
"The solution offers a good GUI."
"Its management web interface is very easy and user-friendly."
"Check Point has a centralized console that makes it possible to manage all the deployed equipment. It also has a built-in VPN service that lets users connect through VPN to our organization, which facilitates teleworking while cutting off unauthorized access to the organization's internal network."
"The most valuable features are application control, regulation, and threat prevention."
"We have found the central management (Smart Console) to be very helpful in managing all the firewalls and keeping the software/hotfix versions up to date."
"I have to say that it was Application Control and web filtering are excellent."
"Good basic firewall features."
"I'm the expert when it comes to Linux systems, however, with the pfSense, due to the web interface, the rest of the staff can actually make changes to it as required without me worrying about whether they've opened up ports incorrectly or not. The ease of use for non-expert staff is very good."
"The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"What I like about pfSense is that it works well and runs on an inexpensive appliance."
"The product’s documentation is good."
"It is a good firewall with good performance."
"The solution is very robust."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"The room for improvement is about the global delivery time period. Usually I need to wait for almost one month to deliver it overseas. So if you can shorten the deliver time it'd be great."
"We sometimes have issues with FortiGate's routing table in the latest firmware update. We had to downgrade the device because our customers complained about bugs."
"There is one big configuration file with no separations for the unique VDOMs. Maybe they could separate individual VDOM configuration files with the root VDOM configuration file referencing the individual VDOM config files."
"Fortinet already improved FortiGate, but in the current market, many brands of security devices have improved together. Fortinet still needs to catch up with market standards. Fortinet is lacking in features in comparison to competitors."
"Security is a continuous process. In every product, there is a requirement for improvement. Its pricing should also be improved according to Indian market requirements. They must also improve on the reporting part. Its reporting can be more precise. If we can get a real-time report in a specific format, it will be helpful for customers to know about the current status of their security."
"It should be user-friendly from an implementation point of view. Its setup is a little bit difficult."
"It can be expensive, especially for small businesses."
"IoT should be considered in future development."
"Reporting has to be improved."
"Without any training, it is very hard to administrate the whole Check Point NGFW."
"The tool’s architecture could be improved a bit."
"You need to merge all the old consoles into one new one and make the interface more convenient for the novice administrator."
"There needs to be more storage space for reporting."
"The GUI could use more “bells and whistles”. It's got plenty of info for a Sysadmin but some people like shiny things."
"As an open-source solution, there are so many loopholes happening within the product. By design, no one is taking ownership of it, and that is worrisome to me."
"The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall."
"I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting."
"The solution could use better reporting. They need to offer more of it in general. Right now, the graphics aren't the best. If you need to provide a report to a manager, for example, it doesn't look great. They need to make it easier to understand and give users the ability to customize them."
"A way to clean squid cache from the GUI."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"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."
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.