We changed solutions since what we had was not effective against the attacks we see today; besides, the visibility was very low and the management was very complicated.

We used several solutions, such as Symantec, ESET, and Kaspersky.

We used to use Kaspersky, and we switched for security reasons.

Previously I worked with Cylance AV. Considering all value-added features along with the robust endpoint solution and threat intel, Check Point Harmony is the better choice. 

The solutions we previously used were not focused on securing emails. We have used Microsoft, Google, Cisco, and Palo Alto Networks.

We were using Symantec and Sophos. There was not 100% clarity on reports, and we had many challenges in terms of upgrading the features. 

When we switched to Check Point, we got a single dashboard to control end clients, DLP, and email security. Their collaboration and support team is also awesome. 

No, it is the first tool of this type that we deployed in my organization.

We had a legacy system in place before using SandBlast Agent. The features, efficiency, and our pre-existing relationship with Check Point drove us to going with SandBlast Agent.

We used ESET, which was not satisfying.

Starting with the pros, I would say that Check Point Harmony Endpoint provides value for money. After purchasing Check Point Harmony Endpoint, you need to consider the fact that the cost you pay for the solution and the value you derive from the product is very proportional. When it comes to Check Point Harmony Endpoint, I can say that a user does not pay high prices for a poor solution. A user pays a decent fee for a very good product. I think the first pro is that the value you get from the solution is made available at a very competitive price. The product is seamless and easy to use. With the centralized portal, a user can manage all Check Point products, including Check Point Harmony, Check Point Quantum, or Check Point CloudGuard, from a single point, which is also a fantastic pro for Check Point. Regarding the cons of the solution, I would say that it stems from people's perception of the solution since they feel that an affordable product may not be good enough. There is a need to work around people's wrong perception of Check Point products. Still, I don't know if such a negative perception is something that is widespread across the globe or whether it is exclusive to Nigeria or the markets in Africa. Check Point needs to work in areas like branding and other value propositions to make products stand out in the market despite the solutions being more affordable than the ones offered by competitors.

We previously used Rapid7. It was costly and had limited agent scanning timescales.

I have no experience with any other product.

This was the first endpoint tool we use in my organization. We didn't use anything previously.

We did use a different solution previously. We switched as we want to use the same brand for our NGFW and our endpoint protection.

We used McAfee AV but it was not able to provide the next-generation capability that we were looking for.

We did use Microsoft Defender. It lacked features, and therefore we moved away from the solution.

We did use a different solution in the past. It was not performing well and we were always getting infected by malicious software. they made us switch to Checkpoint Endpoint Security.

Before implementing Check Point Harmony Endpoint, we used a similar solution called Trend Micro SMAX.

CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Cynet, and Fortinet FortiGate are a few of the solutions that I have worked with in the past. Among all the solutions that I have used to date, CrowdStrike is the best.

Nothing was implemented that was similar to this type of tool.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

I've also worked with CrowdStrike, which I also like very much. 

Yes, we used different products earlier, however, due to the fact that the feature available is more advanced here than in others and there are lots of add-on features, we prefer this.

We have used multiple different anti-virus products including those by McAfee, AVG, and Kaspersky. This project was to centralize the AV to one single platform.

We did not previously use a different solution.

We did not use a different solution previously.

Previously, we used third-party antivirus software and switched to Check Point SandBlast Agent for its ease of integration with other Check Point products and to improve protection against ransomware.

I have not worked with other related products.

We previously used McAfee for endpoint protection, it was a corporate decision to switch. This could have been due to a cost or technology issue. 

We previously used Trend Micro and ESET. We couldn't manage the endpoints of multiple customers centrally.

We previously had a Cisco solution.

We did not use a different solution previously.

We were using multiple solutions to protect the environment in the past. These include solutions such as McAfee, Websence DLP, encryption, etc. however, now it is all happening with this one tool and console 

I have not used a similar solution previously.

No, Sandblast was chosen as the first option.

We had a solution but it wasn't really a similar solution. This is the first of its kind for us, for what it does. We do have antiviruses, so that the machines aren't just dead, and we do have our own hybrid package of something that, if you add four of them together, maybe adds up to half of this, but no similar package.

I'm currently working with Cisco Secure Endpoint and Palo Alto Cortex XDR. 

Previously we used ESET at endpoints, however a site once had a ransomware attack and the solution was not able to solve the problem, so it was decided to change.

Previously we only had or used Microsoft's antivirus or endpoint, however, we had all non-centralized security. Through this tool, we can centralize everything in the Infinity Check Point Portal.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint protection for about ten years. We were missing so many features and needed additional tools and effort to protect our endpoint. 

We also use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

I am building my own opinion of which is better, between the Check Point product and the Microsoft product. Depending on where you do your research, you get different opinions, although much of that is supplier-driven.

In my former organization, I was using CrowdStrike. It has much better performance when looking only at processes.

In the past, I worked with Symantec for five or six years. I have also worked with a solution by McAfee. I found that the interface for Check Point is not as user-friendly as these solutions. The initial setup is also not as easy as Symantec.

We switched because of the pricing. Our cost was about $20 USD for each end-user, whereas with Check Point it is $3 USD or $4 USD per end-user.

We're also using Sophos.

I didn't have that much experience with anything else. When I was joined, our company was using the same solution.

We did not use a different solution.

We did not previously use the solution.

We did not use a different solution previously.

We also used Symantec and some of their anti-malware products. Once we tested Check Point, we realized that it's a lot better. 

The move to hybrids has been working well during Covid.

We had SonicWall, but it was not stable. With the number of users we needed, SonicWall became a bit overwhelmed.

We did not use another similar solution prior to this one.

We were previously using Sophos. We switched to Check Point because the pricing was much cheaper (by 25 percent).

We changed from Fortigate because we deal with public data, government data, utility billing. It is very important to maintain security to the greatest extent possible. We can't afford to lose data.

Our billing cycle that takes place periodically. If we miss something, lose data due to ransomware or the like, we are totally out or operation. We can't again continue the billing cycle in such a situation. It is subject to penalties imposed by the local state government.

Each scenario is different depending on the client's requirements or the regulations they need to follow or what they need to cover around risks.

Symantec to Check Point.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

We previously used Symantec Endpoint. Our reason for switching is because Check Point offers the most secure and surefire way to tackle ransomware.

I was part of the decision-making process.

We used Kaspersky. The Check Point Endpoint was new. We wanted to roll it out to our clients. We wanted to first try it in-house.