We did look at other options, including Fortinet, however, nothing is as good as Checkpoint. 

We looked at Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Cisco.

Yes, we looked at Cisco, Juniper, and Palo Alto.

We evaluated offers for Cisco, Fortinet, and Palo Alto solutions.

We no longer evaluated other options. 

Except for Palo Alto, Check Point is good compared to its competitors. Cisco ASA lacks features.

In looking at replacing the existing firewalls we considered Cisco, Palo Alto, and Check Point. 

Check Point Quantum Network Gateways offered us a more favorable price point without compromising on functionality.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We have evaluated Sophos and Palo Alto.

The company also evaluated Palo Alto.

We also evaluated:

• Cisco NGFW
• Fortigate NGFW
• Palo Alto NGFW

We considered several vendors, including Fortinet, Cisco, Huawei, Sophos, and Barracuda.

We also evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet.

We also looked into Fortinet.

We evaluated NGFWs from Cisco, Palo Alto, and Fortinet in addition to the Check Point.

We also looked at FortiGate and Palo Alto.

I had the opportunity to review Palo Alto and Fortinet.

We also previously looked at Meraki, Fortigate, and Palo Alto as options. 

We selected the following brands and models by going through different reviews:

• SonicWall 9200
• Sophos XG 750
• Fortinet FortiGate 1500D
  
• Check Point 15400

We requested that the vendors do a PoC. Check Point, SonicWall, Sophos and Fortinet agreed to run one. Finally, we chose Check Point.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet as well as Check Point

We considered Fortinet, Palo Alto, and SonicWall before settling on Check Point

We evaluated Fortigate, Sophos XG, and Barracuda. However, ultimately the decision boiled down to our parent company already using Check Point. 

We did check out FortiGate and Palo Alto as well. 

We looked at Fortinet and Palo Alto. We did not feel FortiGate was capable of what we required. Palo Alto is somehow not as good as Check Point, budget-wise and performance-wise. Palo Alto is more costly than Check Point.

If you need a good support or something that is good budget-wise, then I recommend going with Check Point compared to Cisco or Palo Alto.

I also evaluated Palo Alto.

Before making the last purchase, we evaluated other solutions, such as Palo Alto or Fortinet.

Palo Alto is a zone-based firewall and Check Point is an interface-based firewall. With Palo Alto, we are using Panorama to install policy, and in Check Point, we are using their Management Server to install policy. The Palo Alto Panorama console has more options than Check Point.

On the Check Point Firewall, you can install policy. With the Palo Alto firewall, you can install policy on multiple gateways. You cannot install policy on multiple gateways with the Check Point Firewall.

We searched the market for months before we chose Check Point. There are many security solutions on the market, both for on-premises and on the cloud. We chose Check Point for the ease of use.

We've evaluated Fortinet and Forscout products.

We constantly verify other vendor solutions, such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos.

We also looked at Palo Alto, WatchGuard, and Fortinet.

We also evaluated Cisco and Fortinet.

We looked at Palo Alto firewalls.

We evaluated several competitors such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Baracuda

We did review a few competitors during a possible migration plan. The proof of concept did not yield better results, so we stayed with Check Point. We reviewed Cisco, Palo Alto, and SonicWall.

We looked at several other solutions in including Palo Alto at the top of the market and Sophos XG further down.

We evaluated Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto.

I also evaluated Fortinet and Cisco ASA.

We are always evaluating other solutions for our customers. Palo Alto and Fortigate are the top two others at the moment.

We looked into Sophos, Sangfor, and Palo Alto.

We also evaluated Palo Alto.

We did not evaluate other options.

We looked into Watchguard, Palo Alto, and Sophos.

We have evaluated Cisco Firepower and the FortiGate firewall solutions in the past.

I haven't personally evaluated other solutions via reviews from some software review websites.

We also looked at Cisco Firepower.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Cisco.

Yes, the vendor ran through the options and based their decision on the company security standards.

We evaluated Cisco ASA firewalls and Palo Alto devices as well as Juniper SRXs.

We evaluated Palo Alto, Barracuda, and Fortinet.

Another vendor I work with and have the most knowledge about, when compared to Check Point, is Palo Alto. They force you to work a bit more with applications instead of ports, although that's not something Check Point cannot do. 

The central management is different for Palo Alto. You can install it, but it doesn't work the way it works with Check Point. I like both. I like that with the Palo Alto you just go to a web browser and can configure the firewall all the way, but it's also easy to have the SmartConsole from Check Point where you can manage multiple devices. Palo Alto doesn't really have that. They have a central manager where you can get logs and where you can distribute some policies, but it doesn't work the way Check Point's central management does.

Both have their pros and cons. It depends on how you like to work. I like working with both of them. It's a bit different, but in terms of security and features, I don't think they're that different. It's just another way of working.

Palo Alto is also a good vendor. We chose to go with Check Point as well for our enterprise solution as distributors, and we suggest it to our customers.

No, I did not go through software review websites for recommendations and software services outlooks.

I evaluated other options. However, the company settled on Check Point NGFW due to its performance.

We evaluated other options, but I don't remember their names. We basically went to the consultant we deal with for security-related things and said, "What's out there? What do you recommend?" He gave us three and recommended that the Check Point was probably the lead one.

We choose between Palo Alto and Checkpoint.

We also evaluated WatchGuard, Palo Alto, and FortiGate.

I have used other solutions, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto.

I'm not sure that there are many differences between Check Point NGFW, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. I haven't used any Fortinet solutions myself, I'm not sure exactly how they work, but I would say that, from a management perspective, both of them are quite similar. Operational-wise, Check Point NGFW is a bit more stable and has a more mature operating system, at least the model that we are using. 

The only difference in functions is how they have branded the firewalls because, in Fortinet, you receive all the functionality for the same price as the firewall itself. Everything is included. However, with Check Point, you buy the hardware separately, and then you buy the different plates that you need and the different licenses for the functions that you need. It's a bit more complex license-wise with Check Point.

The provider offers us the device in three days with the support to import the existing rules and make the migration. We didn't evaluate anything else. 

Fortinet was considered as an option as well.

We did not evaluate other options.

No, we did not evaluate other options. We just compared other alternatives from some review websites and decided to go for Check Point.

I did get some PoCs from other vendors such as Sophos and some other firewall vendors which are focused on small-size organizations mostly.

We did not evaluate other solutions first. 

We have evaluated FortiGate, and we saw that it was more user-friendly, however, some characteristics we needed in regards to complex VPN deployments were only available from Check Point.

We looked at Cisco, Barracuda, and Fortinet.

The only other vendor that we have evaluated is Fortinet.

We did an evaluation between Cisco ASA and Check Point. We had options to extend Cisco ASA or switch to Check Point, but we switched to Check Point Firewall.

Check Point was always our first option. With this type of solution, many security teams are from Check Point.

We looked at FortiGate Firewalls.

There are a lot of evaluations to be done prior to choosing the solution. It caught the customer's attention when the threat extraction/emulation blade really did well during the proof of concept activity.

I have not used any other product.

I have experience with Palo Alto Networks Firewalls and Cisco ASA Firewall. Compared to these solutions, Check Point has a very good, understandable log viewer. It is easy to view and understand the logs, which helps a lot while doing troubleshooting or making new security policies for the organization. Also, it is very easy to create new security policy rules.

The Check Point Antivirus feature lacks in comparison to Palo Alto Networks. Also, compared to other competitive solutions, the training for Check Point available right now is very expensive as well as the certification is little expensive.

With Juniper, one of the biggest downsides is support. The support portal is slow and I won't say the staff is competent in terms of understanding. They're very disconnected internally. What I mean is that the team working on the software development of the firewall has no interface with the support teams that are handling day-to-day TAC cases. They definitely struggle when it comes to understanding challenges, problems, and incidents with the firewalls.

In the past, Juniper firewalls were good, but recently the security offering has just not been there. They don't have anything like SandBlast from Check Point. They don't have up-to-date Zero-day attacks control. They're still running a very old architecture. They can do things like antivirus and URL proxy, but those are very simple features. They have none of the advanced feature set that Check Point has.

Palo Alto is very competitive with Check Point when it comes to security. However, one of the challenges with Palo Alto is that, overall, the solution can be extremely complex and expensive. That is one thing I've heard from customers again and again. Either they have existing Palo Altos or they plan to go to Palo Alto, but when they do a comparison with Check Point, what they find is that the overall value with Check Point is much greater than with Palo Alto firewalls.

We evaluated Cisco ASA Firewall before choosing Check Point NGFW.

We did not evaluate other options.

I was not involved with the evaluation process; I was told that Cisco Firewalls and SonicWall were evaluated at that time.

We also looked at Palo Alto previously.

We have evaluated solutions by Juniper, Cisco, and Palo Alto.

Cisco and PaloAlto were the other options evaluated.

We also looked at Ciscos ASA and Fortigate.

We also evaluated Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Watchguard.

As mentioned, we switched from Check Point to Check Point.

I was not part of the evaluation process.

Yes, however, I prefer not to say which.

Compared to other similar solutions on the market, this product is quite complete.

We did not evaluate other options. We only compared the differences between our existing Cisco ASA implementation and Check Point.

We are also using Cisco ASA and FTD. The problem with Cisco ASA is the GUI is missing, while the GUI is good for Check Point Firewall. Apart from that, in Check Point, there are advanced features, like Antivirus and Threat Management, for which we do not require other hardware, where it is required for Cisco ASA Firewall. So, Check Point provides us a cost savings in that way.

The central management system of Check Point is missing in Cisco ASA. This is a good feature because it saves time. We can use it to manage multiple firewalls through one central management device. It is also easy to use.

We are slowly eliminating Cisco ASA and using more Check Point Firewalls, bringing more Check Point Firewalls into our environment.

I have also used Palo Alto, but the organization is using Check Point because they have more confidence in things like Check Point's stability factor. However, more people are trained to use Palo Alto.

We have not evaluated any other options.

I use this in my company environment. I did not evaluate other options. 

We always evaluate the options. We take into account Check Point, Palo Alto, Cisco, and Fortinet.

The benefits provided by Check Point turned out better than what we requested, which is why this was our first choice.

We evaluated various options, including security upgrades, performance, and Gartner ratings, to make the decision.

Due to experience with Check Point, we did not evaluate other options (like Fortigate or Palo Alto).

I am not responsible for our manager's choice of this product. He said it's the best product to secure our network. 

I did not evaluate other solutions. I previously utilized devices from Sonicwall and Watchguard.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We are currently evaluating new firewall solutions because the Check Point that we have was installed approximately 12 years ago, and wanted to change to a next-generation firewall.

We evaluated many others options including solutions by Fortinet, Palo Alto, SonicWall, etc.

We think that Check Point is the best because they are at the forefront.

I've worked with Cisco routers and firewalls. I've worked with Ruckus switches and routers, and Aruba access points.

A drawback with these products is their stability. Almost all other networking devices I've seen need to be rebooted over time. If they're left unattended for extended periods of time, we experience some sort of downtime. That is not an issue with our Check Point products.

We evaluated Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Barracuda. 

We did not really look at other options. We are very confident with Check Point solutions and we take the stability it offers very seriously.

I wasn't in the organization when the evaluation happened. However, I know Juniper SRX was one of the solutions looked at as we are using them for our internal firewalls.

We evaluated Palo Alto, Fortinet FortiGate, and Cisco FirePOWER.

Check Point was new to the market so we had to ask questions among other users. "How is this solution? Is it fine?" We got some top users, some top enterprises, that said, "Yes, we've been using it for a while and it's not bad. It's actually great." So we said, "Okay, let's go ahead."

Having leading-class firewalls with massive growth possibilities made the purchasing decision much easier. Having carried out a few PoCs, the obvious decision was the Check Point solution of Maestro and 6500s in a high availability environment.

We did not evaluate other options previously. 

We also evaluated Palo Alto.

Check Point was implemented in the company before I arrived. 

Check Point is the option that has always been considered for its good firewall organization, which allows us to have excellent security.

Compared to the Cisco ASA Firewall, the Check Point Firewall makes your work easier because you're not deploying the firewall, then pushing the policy, which takes time. Initially, when I was working with the ASA Firewall, we used to implement the firewall, then we used to hand it over to operations for the maintenance. So, I had to manually implement all of these rules, etc. 

When I learned about Check Point and had basic training for it, I got to know the architecture was different for the Check Point Firewall. You can just have a policy package and deploy that policy package on any of the firewalls that you want. It already has that particular set of rules, which makes your life easier while implementing the rules on the firewall, e.g., if there are multiple firewalls on the network that should have the same policy.

We have not evaluated any other option before Check Point. 

We did not evaluate other products before choosing Check Point NGFW.

I have compared many vendors, including Sophos and Fortinet.

I have evaluated other solutions.

We have evaluated Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to see what was available, and recently, I researched the Azure VM series to know how it worked.

We have looked into Sophos.

We evaluated Fortinet FortiGate but Check Point seemed like a better fit for us in terms of features and value.

We looked at Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos. I brought some of that experience to bear on our decision but our shortlist was Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Check Point.

The reason I selected Check Point was partly its pedigree, knowing that Palo Alto formed out of Check Point. Both companies are built from the same DNA and each has a history and a culture I respect and trust. Check Point Research is regularly in the news it seems for finding exploits and vulnerabilities in popular cloud platforms. 

Check Point offered quality local support, including our technical sales representative and a support manager that live in the area. A couple of executives also live in the area. If we needed to escalate, we had the people here locally that could help us with that.

My former company used Palo Alto and, while I didn't interface with the products on a regular basis (we relied on the network team for analysis), I'd overhear frustrations with support. Palo Alto is also a great product and it wasn't an easy decision choosing between CP and PA from a technical perspective. I had never used Check Point prior to this position, but it outpaced its competitors in a few key areas, especially the pre-sales phase, POC engagements, local support options, and the maturity of Check Point's ThreatCloud technology.

All sorts of councils in London use the solution. In my new job, there are quite a lot of councils and schools as well. They need to know the web traffic from their users, e.g., what they are searching and looking for and where they are going. Therefore, its application and URL filtering comes in quite handy. I've seen the application and URL filtering on Palo Alto, and it is a pain to get those details from it and create a report for users. Whereas, the user report is very easy to get with Check Point.

I have not seen another firewall offer the same level of logs that Check Point offers. I have worked on ASA and Juniper SRX. While they are a bit similar, they are not exactly what Check Point has to offer.

We evaluated other solutions.

We also evaluated Fortinet and Cisco.

Working in MSP, we have looked at various NGFWs. Check Point is one of them.

I was not involved with the initial deployment of Check Point in our environment as it was before my time. However, each subsequent deployment I have been involved in with Check Point was used based on the existing relationship. Once the issues became too impactful and we realized we had no hope of seeing any improvements we began efforts to rip out the existing Check Point equipment.

We evaluated Palo Alto, Cisco (which we were using), and we also evaluated Check Point — which we ended up with.

Other competitors would be Fortinet and Palo Alto.

Check Point is more complex than Fortinet and less complicated than Palo Alto.

I have stuck to this solution as I read reviews before and it was all positive in regards to Check Point NGFW. I did not use a different solution.

I was shown the POC and I fell in love with the fact that the Check Point NGFW has a GUI that allows for easy configuration. It also does firewalls very well. Therefore, I did not look at other options.

I looked at Fortigate, and it was not as clearly defined, and easy to follow as Check Point is.

We are also using Forcepoint, which is a little bit different on the OS and focused more on IPS/IDS. It is a good practice to combine two different firewall vendors in case one of them gets hacked.

We also evaluated Palo Alto, like five years ago, but that doesn't make much sense for us. 

For cloud security purposes, we looked at FortiGate. In the end, we decided to go with Check Point. Primarily, we went with Check Point because of the fee. We also already had expertise on Check Point and the team is comfortable around it. We like that Check Point has a single dashboard. Feedback from peers suggests that the support in India for NGFWs is not as good with other vendors as it is at Check Point.

I have been always on the side of Check Point, however, Palo Alto was another option we considered.

I evaluated Fortinet and Check Point.

We also evaluated Palo alto.

We also evaluated a solution by Palo Alto and we chose Check Point because it was more cost-friendly.

I did not evaluate other options.

We evaluated products by Fortinet and Palo Alto.

I have checked a few other vendors and solutions but, in the end, Check Point is the best candidate for our organization. That's true technology-wise and because of the support. Because Check Point is an Israeli company, it's very easy to get help very fast. We speak the same language and that helps as well. Doing support in Hebrew is very helpful for us. 

Other vendors were either more expensive or, to get some of the features, we would have had to upgrade to a bigger, stronger, and more expensive machine. But with Check Point, that wasn't the case.

We looked at Cisco vs Fortinet. We chose Check Point because of the cost benefit that this product offers.

I also considered the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall. I evaluated this solution and compared the price.

We chose Check Point because the price for Palo Alto is very high.

We did not evaluate other options.

 I evaluated several other solutions and compared them before choosing Check Point.

There are now more competitors in the market, like Palo Alto and VMware. 

Palo Alto is a bit more smooth and cost-efficient than Check Point. Palo Alto has Unified Threat Management (UTM) coupled with a dake lake database that is huge. Also, its migration is more smooth than Check Point's. 

Half of our environment is with Check Point and the other half is with Fortinet. We don't have a strategy of giving everything to one vendor; we like to have both.

We did not evaluate other options. 

When I choose a solution for a customer, I must verify the features, current specifications and make recommendations. When we use an all-in-one firewall solution, we usually recommend using a Palo Alto external firewall. This is because Fortinet has an SD-WAN solution and firewalls, and Palo Alto is the same. But I don't think Check Point has one. When a customer doesn't want to implement many solutions, we recommend using Fortinet or Palo Alto.

We did evaluate Juniper, as well.

We didn't require an evaluation process. We knew that we had to go for Check Point.

We evaluated Palo Alto and FortiGate.

Our customers evaluate other products but a lot of them prefer Check Point.

Before choosing Check Point we evaluated Fortinet and a newer version of SonicWall.

We evaluated other options, including Cisco ASA. The difference was that Check Point provides advanced features, such as threat prevention and antivirus. Apart from those, it also provides us with IPS. Also, for Cisco ASA, we had to take extra services to install it, so we went for Check Point.

We're halfway there right now, with the Cisco Firewalls we're switching to. They're very capable, they work like you'd expect, simple licensing, simple upgrades. It's been a breeze with those so far. 

We are considering switching to Palo Alto or maybe Cisco in the near future. 

I also evaluated Palo Alto and Cisco ASA.

Check Point pros:

• The CLI is very ease to use.
• It provides advanced security threat prevention.

Check Point cons:

• The graphical user interface should be easier to use.
• More training should be provided by Check Point. 

Cisco NGFWv

We definitely evaluate other options based on the customer's budget, and the stability and technical specs of the firewall. We generally choose Check Point as our preferred product vendor.

I considered using Cisco before deciding on Check Point.

We looked at Palo Alto and the Cisco FTD Next-Generation Firewall.

We always check security options before implementing them to customers.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Cisco ASA.

Check Point's web administration is not complete. If you compare it to Fortinet's web administration, Check Point's web administration is not nice. However, Check Point's full solution, including SmartConsole, is better than Fortinet's solution.

We are currently considering Fortinet as another possible option. 

The solution is significantly more expensive than Fortinet, although this holds true to a lesser degree when compared with Palo Alto.