We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and TeamViewer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Remote Access solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Technical support has been excellent."
"The solution has been solid for me for over five years."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Organizations that already use the Check Point NGFW Solution do not require any additional hardware, which makes the implementation straightforward and reduces the time to go live."
"One of the features that I like most about this software is that it has a very intuitive, simple, and versatile interface that makes it easy to use and configure."
"One of the most outstanding features is the ability to deliver third-party services and achieve double authenticity with integrated identities."
"The management of the solution is very simple. It allows for a single view of all the endpoints."
"Thanks to all these security processes, our users can access our infrastructure with the certainty that we will not be compromised."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is the remote access connection. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had a problem with it."
"The product and platform work well. That is why I have stay with them so long. The stability has typically been good."
"The implementation process is simple."
"TeamViewer is fast and easy to manipulate."
"This solution is straightforward to use."
"It was worth the investment. You can do file transfers and video calls with it. You can do a lot of copy paste stuff. E.g., if I have a file and want to place it on somebody's machine, I can just copy it off of mine and paste it right on their machine. I don't have to put it in a Dropbox account and have them log into it to pull it off. I can do all that right through TeamViewer. When you're looking at the TeamViewer screen, you think you are working on your own machine."
"This is a unique solution that is very easy to install."
"The provisioning of VPN users has room for improvement."
"There were some issues with automation and instability."
"When you want to deploy a new Check Point agent, it is really a pain in the butt. For example, Windows 10 now has updates almost every couple of months. It changes the versioning and things under the hood. These are things that I don't understand, because I'm not a Windows person. However, I know that the Check Point client is installed on the Windows machine, and if the Check Point client's not kept up-to-date, then it's functionality breaks. It has to be up-to-date with the Windows versions. Check Point has to update the client more often. Now, the problem is that the Check Point client is not easy to update on remote computers and it's not easy to deploy a new client."
"The connection has gotten less smooth as the number of users increases. The issue is that the logs fill up quickly. Too many users are connecting remotely. It worked great when we only had a few remote connections. Now, it is disconnecting people and dropping the internet connection."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"The main feature that would be improved within Check Point Remote Access is its operation within Linux OS, as it currently does not have many features for that OS."
"They could add more features, like the security to block off the doors, or create another hatch, something like this. They could make the features safer, add malware to make my mail and the Kryon system safer and to protect data at an earlier stage."
"Some configurations, like idle timeout (the requirement came from multiple users), are not possible to configure directly from the Check Point management server."
"You can't configure multiple, unattended control passwords on the Mac. On the Mac, there's only one. On Windows, there are multiple unattended control passwords. I have people in different departments. My infrastructure people need to control a server and my developers may need to go into that same server. But I don't want them to have the same password... on the Mac, it can be done but it's extremely clunky and problematic."
"The file transfer functionality crashes sometimes."
"Some of the additional features, like the meeting stuff, is making it too cluttered."
"TeamViewer could improve by adding support for other operating systems, such as Linux and CAKE."
"There is a paid version of this solution with more features available. However, they should provide more free features to the user, such as factor authentication."
"TeamViewer can improve connectivity. I had some problems connecting to my clients and now I use AnyDesk."
"TeamViewer is expensive, and you get a limited number of connections for your money."
"I am not sure about all the features of TeamViewer, but if they have no voice communication or file transfer features they should add them."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 5th in Remote Access with 62 reviews while TeamViewer is ranked 1st in Remote Access with 85 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while TeamViewer is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point Remote Access VPN writes "Is easy to use and has a nice interface, but the scalability needs to improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TeamViewer writes "Solid cross-platform remote control, but with kludgy central management and some serious feature issues on macOS". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Fortinet FortiClient, Check Point Harmony Mobile and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, whereas TeamViewer is most compared with TeamViewer Tensor, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Parallels Access, ISL Online and HelpWire. See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. TeamViewer report.
See our list of best Remote Access vendors.
We monitor all Remote Access 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.