We used another solution before, which was only command-line based. Check Point was only the major competitor and best option a decade ago. 

I had the chance to work with Fortigate and Palo Alto Firewalls before. Due to the stability and know-how regarding Check Point, we chose this vendor.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched due to the fact that Cisco's product was very hard to manage and lacked any real intelligence.

Yes, and we switched because Check Point proved to be more reliable.

As noted earlier, our transition to this solution marked a shift from our previous Cisco ASA Cluster setup. Check Point's prominent position in the network industry and the compelling price point offered made it too appealing to overlook.

We previously used Cisco Firepower, however, we were not satisfied with its performance both functional and operational. 

We used Cisco ASA 5500 series firewalls, but these have reached the end of life and needed to be replaced.

We used SonicWall. We switched due to wanting a more enterprise-quality product and previous experience.

We are currently working with Sophos, however, we started recommending Check Point to our clients due to the excellent capabilities that they carry.

The company used to sue Cisco Firepower. I wasn't with the company when switching.

We used a different solution and needed more processing power and functionality which this had compared to industry competitors.

We previously used the Cisco ASA 5525X version, but we found that its management and performance capabilities were distinct. Cisco retired some of its features, and the replacement version offered came at a higher cost for the features it provided. Consequently, we decided to transition to Check Point, which offered us a more favorable price point without compromising on functionality.

We adopted Check Point because of the cost and support.

We have collaborated with various vendors including VMware, Cisco, Fortinet, and Juniper Networks in the past. However, after attending numerous tech conferences and evaluating different solutions, we decided to switch to Check Point. Upon thoroughly examining their offerings, we concluded that Check Point's solutions best suit our needs.

We used Cisco Firepower and we felt that Check Point is more mature.

We did use a different solution. We switched as we need more enhancements. 

We previously utilized Cisco firewalls but the cost structure of the hardware, licensing, and support became prohibitive. Check Point offered a more robust solution at an affordable price point.

We did not use a different solution previously.

I have used multiple solutions in the past. We migrated from Cisco ASA to Check Point six years ago and have never looked back. Our old ASA required additional hardware components for additional security services.

I did not previously use a different solution. I've just used Check Point.

We used Cisco ASA 5510 as our perimeter firewall before purchasing this NGFW. It only had firewall features. We switched because we were looking for a strong gateway level security with attributes like antivirus, anti-spam, IPS, web content filtering, application control, and secure wireless access points.

We were using a Cisco firewall solution. It was outdated and the management interface was not unified.

Palo Alto provides Single-Pass Parallel Processing. Palo Alto and Check Point are not very different.

I also have experience with Fortinet and Cisco, both of which have made significant developments recently. They have introduced software-based firewall and system solutions, which have garnered attention from customers. This shift in the competitive landscape has led to changes in customer preferences, with more organizations considering Fortinet as a viable option for their security needs.

Previously, we were using seven open-source firewalls, and we decided to go for a solution with good ratings from NGFW users. We wanted something well-positioned in the market that had good support.

We used Draytek. It didn't offer the security features that Check Point does and we were a victim to a successful attack from external sources which Check Point would have caught. We also found the hardware of Draytek was too underpowered to handle the size of our network. 

We used Cisco ASA, however, we wanted a product that was more stable with central management. 

We migrated SonicWall to Check Point about two years back. That took one year to set up in our organization. 

We switched away from SonicWall because it is a legacy firewall at end of life. SonicWall was missing features that Check Point has, like UTM, IDS, IPS, antivirus, etc. Check Point is better for protection and performance-wise.

We were previously using Cisco ASA, Cisco X-ray, and FortiGate. However, the technologies we had, particularly the Cisco ASA, were outdated, and there was a clear need to upgrade to a next-generation appliance. When considering our options, we received a proposal from a local vendor in Angola, and after reviewing it, we decided to move forward with Check Point as it is widely recognized as one of the top solutions in the market.

I have been using Cisco ASA. The switch was done based on the intuitive management interface and ease of use of Check Point.

I was testing WatchGuard and Fortinet. In the end, it was easier for me to integrate Check Point.

We have always had Check Point solutions.

We used a normal antivirus on the endpoints previously. However, after we took a cybersecurity course, we understood that a bigger security solution was needed.

We didn't use a previous solution. 

We previously used a Cisco PIX firewall.

We did use a different solution. We switched to improve security.

From the start, we have been using Check Point.

We did use a different solution. Check Point provides better visibility where security is concerned. 

We did not previously use a different solution.

We have always used Check Point.

We did have another solution, but due to an issue with the HTTPS inspection that the manufacturer was not able to properly rectify or fix for 6 months, we lost faith in their ability to provide adequate support going forward for any issues we might come across. 

We did you another solution, but we switched due to prices and solution stability.

Check Point is a stable product, but when compared to other vendors like Palo Alto and Fortinet, I'd recommend going with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is a more stable and robust firewall solution than Check Point.

I did not previously use a different solution. 

We have used other solutions, however, we continue to use Check Point NGFW.

When comparing Check Point to Fortinet and Palo Alto solutions, there are several advantages and disadvantages to consider. One key advantage of Check Point is its robust logging capabilities. Administrators can access detailed traffic flow information, providing valuable insights into network activity. Another strength is the trust associated with Check Point. They pioneered the concept of "stateful firewall," which has established a strong foundation for trust in their security solutions and is built on their extensive experience and history in the field.

I have previously used Palo Alto, Juniper, and Cisco. Check Point NGFW is better than all of them. 

I changed from Cisco ASA. It was a long time ago. Cisco ASA was an old technology, whereas Check Point NGFW has better performance and better knowledge about applications.

Check Point is the company's first NGFW.

We have experience working with Fortigate and Palo Alto in the past. In Sri Lanka, Check Point has a strong marketing presence, which influences customer decisions.

We switched from SonicWall back in the day due to the feature sets available at the time.

We did not use a different solution. 

We previously used Fortinet.

We were using Cisco firewalls before. We had the need to implement Universal Threat Protection and the configuration of the Firepower system of Cisco was more complicated than the integrated policy configuration of Check Point.

We also work with other vendors. Check Point is as good as its competitors, but its cost is a bit higher.

I was working with Palo Alto for a couple of years, and I found their data protection functionality to be particularly interesting. I believe this feature is quite innovative and that other vendors should consider taking inspiration from it.

I haven't gone through any other platforms or solutions. However, these platforms have become a key part of our organization & work management.

We did use a different product. The previous solution was actually more complex to set up and had a high price.

We did use a different solution originally. We changed to Check Point for achieving high levels of security.

We switched from Cisco to Check Point. Cisco was CLI-based and cumbersome with rulesets.

We have used Juniper SSG firewalls in the past and moved to Check Point due to the learning curve on the new JunOS deployments with the SRX firewalls.

Prior to this solution, we were using GajShield. However, due to limited visibility and support, we opted for a technical refresh and upgrade of products.

I'm heavily biased towards Fortinet. Check Point is a direct competitor, so from my experience, it's a decent firewall. There are strong points and weak points, but Fortinet is superior for various reasons.

I hadn't gone through any such solution earlier. I just tried in-built system solutions.

I have not used a similar solution.

I can't remember the product, but what we had initially was an entry-level device. It was a single-purpose firewall. We went up to an enterprise solution that had additional features.

We moved from a previous solution to Check Point as it is more reliable and easy to manage, and our old solution wasn't able to provide the level of security we desired.

We changed from an older solution as it worked for five years and was old. It wasn't equipped for the new generation threats.

Yes. We used to use a Cisco 2500 and a Fortinet 110C. 

The Check Point device is better and the speed is superior.

For our own infrastructure, Check Point was the first vendor chosen.

I also work with Fortinet, and I find it preferable because it offers a wider range of options. Additionally, its integrated package functions exceptionally well, with seamless coordination between services.

We did not use a different solution. It's the best in the marketplace and stronger than any other firewall. We can trust it 100%.

I haven't been in integration with any other solution.

We decided on this solution after looking at reviews and comparing prices. Check Point proved to be the best option in the end. 

I used Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls before. From Fortinet to Palo Alto it was a big change. 

Fortinet was not a good enough solution as compared to PA. Then, due to finances and some other reasons, I switched to the Check Point and it was one of the best decisions in my life.

We already are using a variety of brands.

We have Cisco, however, that's for networking and not security. 

In some areas we were using Cisco, however, we changed to Check Point to centralize things.

Previously, we had a Fortinet firewall, which was pretty slow when it came to operations.

Previously, we were using the Cisco ASA Firewalls, which are one of the most demanded firewall in the market. We switched to Check Point because their firewall is more advanced than Cisco ASA. They are also providing us the extra benefit of features, like their central management system, Antivirus, and Threat Prevention, which were not provided by Cisco ASA. 

There was no type of tool that would supply these qualities.

We previously used Cisco ASA 5585 Firewall.

Mostly, they are the Gartner leaders for NGFW. A switch was made when customers found the solution more secure per doing the proof of concept.

I have not used any other product.

We previously used Watchguard. It was not so good with different vendors for some features.

We currently use Check Point and Cisco ASA. The purpose for the company is to increase the security. They were only using Cisco ASA Firewall, which is kind of a degrading firewall right now because it lacks many features, which are advanced in Check Point Firewall. With Cisco ASA, we need to purchase additional IPS hardware. But, for Check Point, we do not require that. Also, if we want the same configuration for multiple firewalls at a time, then Cisco ASA does not support that. We have to create the same policy in each firewall.

In the past, most of the customers I've worked with have used different firewall vendors, such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Juniper.

I've recently seen deployments where customers have tried to move from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower and the deployment has gone horribly wrong because the product has not been tested by Cisco very well and is not a mature product. I've gone in and reviewed their business requirements and technical requirements and, based on that, I've recommended Check Point and done the design and deployment. They've absolutely been happy with the solution, how secure and how capable it is.

We use Check Point across multiple types of customers, such as financials, retail, and various other public and private sector organizations. I review their security architecture, which is firewall specific and, based on that, I have recommended Check Point. In most cases, I've managed to convince them to go ahead with Check Point firewalls as a preferred secure firewall solution.

The main reason is that Check Point is far ahead in the game. They're definitely the market leader. They are visionaries when it comes to security. Another reason is that a lot of firewall architecture starts from the firewall itself, which is the local firewall. It can easily be hacked and manipulated. However, the Check Point architecture, out-of-the-box, is very secure. They have a central Management Server and all of the firewalls are managed through that one central point. So in case somebody breaks into your firewall, the firewall is encrypted; they will delete the database. The architecture is secure by default. The good thing is that other firewall vendors have realized this and they've started to copy the same system that Check Point has used for the past 20 years now.

Compared to other vendors such as FortiGate and Kaspersky, Check Point's protection engines stand out for their intuitiveness. However, the drawback lies in the pricing.

We have never used a different solution. We have been using Check Point NGFW since we first launched our network 21 years ago, and we have been very satisfied with its performance and reliability.

We did not previously use a different solution.

I have not been here while a different solution has been used. We do use a separate brand of firewall internally to prevent an exploit against Check Point, allowing someone to penetrate the perimeter and the internal firewall containers.

We previously used Cisco and Fortinet. Check Point is a long-lasting vendor that we use, based on trust.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have been using Check Point for a long time.

We were using Palo Alto and Cisco before and we replaced them with Check Points.

We used Palo Alto in a  few of our sites, but we found Palo Alto was more expensive and its updates and services were also more expensive compared to the Check Point firewall.

Cisco is a very basic firewall in the market, and it has a limited set of features, compared to Palo Alto and Check Point. Palo Alto has rich features, but it is one of the more expensive firewalls in the market. The Check Point firewall is not too expensive, but it is also a third-generation firewall.

The drawback of the Check Point firewall is the lack of training materials. That should be increased.

It's been a long time since we started using this. When we decided to expand several years before and we decided to go ahead with Check Point and continued with Check Point. We reviewed a lot of other products from different vendors, however, his was chosen as the best by our engineering team and we decided to stick with this.

I do use other technologies, however, Check Point is historically more stable for me, as they have had fewer exploitable security breaches.

I was not present within the company when it was decided to switch from one solution to another, and actually our previous solution was Check Point as well - and it was just reaching its end of support.

This platform was already being used when I joined my company.

We have used BitScaler previously and use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

Yes, we have used a different solution previously and have switched because of the great performance that Check Point offers.

Prior to Check Point, we were using Cisco ASA.

The problem with Cisco ASA is that it is a purely CLl-based firewall. Check Point is not only UI and CLI-based, but it is also a next-generation firewall. It has many different and more advanced features, compared to Cisco ASA.

For example, in Cisco ASA, we can use only two gateways in active-active mode, but with this product, we can use five gateways at a time. Another difference is that the Cisco ASA policy configuration options are not as granular as Check Point.

We are also using Cisco ASA, and we have been thinking that we need to go with Cisco or Check Point. At last, we have decided to go with Check Point because of its advanced features.

The previous solution, Contivity, was before my time in this company and I don't think it even exists anymore. The Contivity was only a firewall and our company wanted more features and benefits. It didn't have next-generation firewall options, like URL filtering, user identity, and IPS. As risks evolved in the data security field, our company needed to adapt.

Four years ago, we had not used an NGFW in Azure. We used the basic security until we could meet and receive support from a Check Point partner.

We used Cisco and Fortinet as tests. Check Point seems more robust.

Previously we were using Cisco ASA 5585. However, the performance was not reliable, and scaling would have been an issue.

We opted to go with Check Point, which could handle high performance and scaling was easier. Check Point also offered IPS features which were easier. Check Point also had better reporting and management tools.

I use Check Point Next-Generation Firewalls since things are automated and updated frequently. I did not use a different solution. 

We used Watchguard, however, we needed better protection and also wanted to try out Check Point NGFW as I'd heard good things about it.

We used Watchguard. We switched due to the threat protection and we felt that Check Point did a better job of providing protection.

Previously, I used Fortinet but Check Point provides us with more features.

I used this solution for the first time in 2015 when I worked for a local Internet Service Provider. At that point, I used the R77.30 console and I saw all of the good features that it provided.

Now, I use R80.30 in my current company and these products are the best in the market. This company is going to be at the forefront and you can complete your solution with other products in their portfolio.

We used Microsoft ISA Server, which is a discontinued product before Check Point. 

I was using ASA, however, we switched to Check Point as it offered a centralized interface for managing all nodes in addition to having an excellent graphical interface that facilitates day-to-day operational activities.

We previously used NetScreen and they were at their end of life.

We used to use Norton VPN. We switched due to the fact that we had issues with the system.

We used Cisco ASA for Internet-facing Web applications, however, Check Point was used at the EDGE ( all user traffic to the internet), internal firewall ( all user traffic to datacenter), all internet traffic to PCI-DSS applications instead.

Check Point is really the best NGFW I have come across and I have worked with many vendors including Cisco, Juniper, and FortiGate. It's a platform that a huge amount of research has gone into over the years. It has a great support community and clear guides to solve all sorts of problems and issues.

I didn't switch to Check Point, as it was always there. We haven't switched away from it over the past 10 years. 

This solution was deployed before I entered this governmental organization. What I have heard is that prior to this, the security and segmentation control was not ideal and they wanted to improve it. With the implementation of Check Point, great improvements have been provided to the infrastructure, maintaining order within the organization.

Initially, I was working on the Cisco ASA Firewall, then I got an opportunity to work on the Check Point Firewall. The main difference is regarding the architecture. Check Point has three-tier architecture, whereas ASA doesn't have that architecture so you have to deploy every rule on the firewall manually. With Check Point, you have a management server and you can have that policy package pushed onto the other firewall, which is one of the key features of Check Point: You don't have to deploy every tool on the firewall manually. We can just push that particular policy package onto the new firewall based on global rules that we have Check Point. 

Every time, I had to deploy all of the rules and basic connectivity, SSH and SNMP management, on the ASA Firewall. Whereas, in Check Point, I can just go onto the global rules and put that policy onto the Check Point Firewall, then it will have all those global rules required in the company.

Check Point also has the Identity Awareness feature, which is using a captive portal. This is something good which I like. 

We were using an ACL based firewall which was traditional and not meets the current security expectation. So to meet the advance security requirement product like Check Point is needed.

The two firewalls that we having implemented are Check Point and Fortinet.

I have also worked with Juniper but it does not have all of the advanced features that Check Point has, such as application control and identity awareness.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

I have some experience with Juniper, WatchGuard, Cisco, and Fortinet.

I have used Cisco, however, due to multiple vulnerabilities, I have switched to Check Point.

I have used other solutions in the past, such as Palo Alto and it has been more expensive. 

We used to work with Fortinet for approximately five years, and the Palo Alto Appliances was some time back.

I believe the Palo Alto support is excellent, and it has more features than Fortinet. Many businesses, in my opinion, are choosing Palo Alto.

Palo Alto support is very good.

Fortinet's main issue is the support. We can't take it to the enterprise level because the Fortinet support is not very good.

Yes, we were previously using SonicWall but security is less robust in comparison to Check Point.

Right now I am using Check Point and Cisco ASA.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

We were previously using SonicWall. We switched because we were struggling with performance, support, and strategy. There were things that were broken that did not have coherent or reliable fixes. At the time we did not consider it to be next-generation technology. There were problems with GeoIP enforcement. There were also quite a few performance problems, especially with inspecting traffic. It would literally bring the device to its knees once we turned on all the inspections that we really felt that we needed. It was under-provisioned, under-specced, and coupled with all the support problems we had, we started shopping for a new solution.

My previous company used to have Junipers that used to send all the credentials via HTTP. Because all Juniper SRXs didn't do that, since they were quite old (version 570), they had to buy new firewalls. I tried to do it, but I couldn't do it on the Junipers, especially since they were out of support and nobody would help me from Juniper.

I told my previous company, "Check Point would be the best solution for them. In the long run, while you might have a lot of issues with auditors, we will actually be able to combat this using Check Point firewalls if you get the proper licensing." Then, we did web bots on Check Points. 

About five years later, an auditor said that we needed to do a RADIUS Authentication, not a clear text password nor the Check Point local password. So, we implemented that as well. This was a bit tricky because they didn't want the local guys to have RADIUS Authentication, but anybody coming from the outside would have to go through RADIUS. This was a bit tricky with Check Point because I had to involve Check Point support in the process as well, but we were able to do it. This was one of the client use cases.

We are using Palo Alto and Check together.

We relied on the ACLs and Zone-Based firewalls of the Cisco switches and firewalls, which doesn't provide sufficient security protection against the modern advanced threats. 

We were using the Sonicwall NSG 3400. It's a good appliance, but the major problem is they don't have competent technical partners in Nigeria. So all our support was via email, phone, and remote. It wasn't very good which is why we had to change it. Sometimes our network went down and we had to start calling so that we can call on the device. They needed to have someone in Nigeria that could assist. That's why we had to leave it.

We did not use a different solution previously.

Working in an MSP, we have multiple vendors/principals of NGFWs.

My current organization has used Check Point for the relevant past and is only recently completely switching vendors to Palo Alto.

I've also worked with Palo Alto and Cisco. 

Compared to Palo Alto and Fortinet, Check Point provides good internal performance, especially for big-scale enterprises and entities, making it a tool that is not just suitable for SMEs or mid-sized companies. Check Point is, however, pricier than other solutions.

Previously, we had not carried out verifications of other devices.

I have used and still use solutions from Sophos, however, in Check Point, some functions are implemented more conveniently. For example, work with logs.

I have been using this solution from the start as it was recommended by my organization.

I used to use the Cisco ASA 5500 series firewalling device.

I did not use a different solution, however, I came to know about this product while I was working for a company called Syrex.

Currently, we are using firewalls from different vendors, including Palo Alto and Cisco. Our Cisco ASA solution is completely CLI-based and Palo Alto is like Check Point with an interface that is a mix of UI and CLI-based.

Both Palo Alto and Cisco ASA have very good tutorials available on the internet, including videos on YouTube and courses on Udemy.

On the other hand, Cisco ASA is more difficult to use because there is no UI and for a person who does not have any knowledge of the networking commands, they have to learn them.

The company has been using Check Point firewalls for the past 10 years. Before that, they used Cisco ASA.

We used to use Fortinet, however, it did not go deep enough and check down to layer seven.

The most I have used are Forcepoint, Cisco, F5, FortiGate, and Palo Alto.

We used to have Zyxel products, but they were aging and couldn't let us connect at faster speeds.

We have seen many customers migrating their firewall from Sophos to Check Point, or from Cisco to Check Point. The main reason has been that they were not getting NGFW functionality and the security feature sets that Check Point provides.

Prior to Check Point, we were using Cisco ASA and we are still using it today. The reason for implementing Check Point is that we wanted more advanced features. What we found was that after 2017, we needed better protection for our environment, and that is something that comes with advanced firewalls such as Check Point and Palo Alto.

I'm very happy with the Check Point firewall because it includes many features that are missing from Cisco ASA. Also, it offers a better and easier experience.

One of the significant differences is that Cisco ASA does not have a central management system. If we want to configure 10 firewalls with the same configuration, it is not possible to push them all at once. Instead, you have to configure them one by one. Apart from that, the antivirus and threat management need additional hardware because the functionality is not present in Cisco ASA. 

One of the positive points about Cisco ASA is that the training is very good, and it is available on the internet. This makes it easy to use for somebody who is new to the product. This is unlike the case with Check Point, where quality training is not available.

I have been using Check Point since the beginning.

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

We migrated from Check Point to Check Point

We switched because it is a good product and because of the cloud support. We are moving to the cloud step by step and the cloud support is important. If another company has better cloud support it may be a factor that would influence my company to switch to another solution. 

Important criteria that we look at when choosing a solution is the local experience and the local support. That it is very important. 

I have also used Cisco, which is more expensive but the support is better.

I did use Cisco ASA. The administration was grueling coupled with some nefarious vulnerabilities and the cost of ownership.

We migrated from Cisco to Check Point. Check Point is easier for the administration console.

We used another solution prior to this one, but the updates were too slow and it was harder to monitor the log.

Our clients are migrating over to Check Point NGFW from Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet because they want the Check Point Application Intelligence feature. 

We used pfSense and suggest just to go for the corporative product.

Previously, we used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the fact that Check Point offers more stability and visibility into the firewalls. Management is easier, especially using the GUI version.

I previously used Cisco ASA Firewalls for network security. 

Check Point is more advanced in comparison to Cisco Firewall. It has many good features, like central management, Threat Prevention, and Antivirus included in one device. With Cisco, we didn't have that.

Previously we were working on Cisco ASA firewall which didn't support the cascading objects. Also, Cisco supports two gateways, whereas the Check Point supports up to five gateways.

We also decided to bring on Check Point because there are a lot of switches that are not supported in Cisco ASA. Also, with Cisco, IPS does not come with the firewall and we have to configure it separately. The Check Point IPS comes with it.

There are a lot of features which are not supported in the Cisco ASA Firewalls.

I have worked with the Cisco ASA firewalls and with firewalls from manufacturers like MikroTik.

We used another firewall that enables basic security features with lot of limitations.

I have used Cisco ASA and FTD. We switched from Cisco ASA to Check Point because there were no antivirus, vulnerabilities, or security prevention features. Check Point has more advance features, which are easier to use, than Cisco.

We also had to install IPS devices with Cisco.

It really depends on the customer's deployment and environment, but we often mix and match firewalls. Check Point is more expensive but easier to manage, and their presales and after-sale support are way better than Fortinet's.

My company is working with different firewall products but I am a Check Point expert and only support their products.

We did not have a previous solution. We went directly with Check Point. We liked the features provided by Check Point and we went for it.

We were using SonicWall and switched because of EOL.

For the infrastructure in question, we have always used Check Point firewalls.

I have worked with Cisco ASA. Cisco is more CLI oriented, whereas Check Point is more GUI oriented. With the GUI, it's easier to manage and administrate it. If the configuration becomes bigger and bigger, it is really easy to see things in the GUI versus a CLI.

The advantage of the CLI is that you can create scripts and execute them. But the disadvantage is that they become so lengthy that it becomes very difficult to manage.

We had another solution. We switched because Check Point gave us more advanced features and there was market demand for network security.

When I started at the company, this solution had been in place, and it was failing, the cluster was failing. So I was tasked with rebuilding the entire solution, to make it a little bit more stable. I bought two brand new servers, and spun up a cluster for Check Point. And it improved a little bit, but for what we paid for that solution, it was not really worth it. Because of stability. 

We have migrated some stuff over to Cisco ASA Firewalls. And those seems to be more stable. A lot easier to use, more stable, faster to get going.

I used Palo Alto firewalls. Compared to Palo Alto we are happier with the Check Point Firewall features. Key differences are the ease of operating Check Point firewalls and the use of Linux, as we are all trained in Linux. It is easier for us to work on the ELA of Check Point firewalls. And Check Point's support is good.

Check Point is the best firewall we have found for our organization so we went with it.

We also use Cisco as well. We use Cisco ASA. Check Point, right now, is our primary firewall.

Check Point offers very good management. For an administrator, it's easy to manage this appliance, this firewall. Cisco, historically, has a big problem with this, specifically with FTD firewalls. There also tend to be some bugs you have to contend with.

I have used Palo Alto and Cisco ASA. When I used Check Point, I got to know that the CLI is based on Linux. I already know Linux, so it was very comfortable for me. Apart from that, it was the company's decision. They wanted to use this firewall.

We went from Sophos to Check Point.

I also have experience with Fortinet. I don't have too much, however. It's still very new to me, and therefore it's hard to compare the two solutions. 

I have experience with other firewalls including FortiGate. Check Point is more secure, although it is more difficult to deploy and configure.

Before Check Point, I used Cisco and Fortinet FortiGate.

The big differences is really the full integration firewall, e.g., Cisco doesn't provide this. Also, the Check Point central console is so much better because it provides that one central station, which is a plus.

The con for Check Point is the stability. The hardware for Check Point fails more often than other vendors. Usually, other firewalls are more stable than Check Point so I don't have to open as many cases with other vendors, like I do with Check Point.

Before Check Point we used Cisco. And we use Cisco for a couple of customers because it's already pre-deployed, so it's not in our hands. We manage operations, so we are still managing Cisco devices. We don't have Juniper right now, but we have Palo Alto for one of our customers.

We previously used Sophos. We switched for more security. 

Six years ago we were using a Fortinet solution. The reason we switched to Checkpoint was because of the central management. It can manage up to hundreds of devices without failing but in reality, it doesn't actually do that. Central management was better than Fortinet back then. That was several years ago. I don't know Fortinet now. The reason we chose Checkpoint was the central management. We needed to manage up to about 700 or 800 devices.

In other companies I've worked at, I also used all sorts of firewall solutions including FortiGate, Cisco, and pfSense. Check Point is easier than Cisco but more complex than pfSense or FortiGate in terms of its features and management.

Check Point's push to make deploy policy changes is slow when you've made a change to then push it out to the firewall. It does take 10 minutes or so to push that change out, so it's not as instant as some of the other firewalls I've used.

My customers use firewall products from several vendors, including Sophos. Sometimes they replace their existing firewalls, and at other times, they run Check Point in parallel.

Previously, I worked on Cisco ASA firewalls and they have a lot of disadvantages. They have a lot fewer features compared to the Check Point firewalls. We just started using Check Point as a firewall in our organization and they give us new features which are better than the Cisco ASA. With Check Point, the IPS is already configured in the box, unlike the Cisco ASA, and there are a lot of features which help us to provide more security for our customers. In our case, the customers are all employees of our organization.

All of these are reasons we switched to Check Point.

We are using many solutions at the same time. Just to be closer to our customers. 

We have used Fortigate before. In comparison, Check Point NGFW provides a more detailed configuration.

I would with firewall solutions from several vendors including Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Meraki.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

In the beginning, we used Fortinet, Juniper, and Cisco. Now, we only use Check Point for firewalls. 

Last year, we changed the Fortinet firewall to the Check Point firewall. The Check Point API let me make 100 net rules in just 10 minutes, which saved us time.

The administration is awful in Fortinet. They have the FortiGate portal on an HTTP portal. Therefore, if you want to make a change, you can make a change. But if you do the change, then it's directly applied on the network, and we don't want to do that. We configure and change the policy and routing. We only apply the changes in the night. However, with Fortinet, you need to configure and apply the changes at the same time. So, it's not useful for our operations.

With Fortinet, you need to duplicate the rules from the DMZ to the Internet and the Internet to the DMZ. In Check Point, you only use one rule, which works on both sites.

Prior to Checkpoint, we considered Cisco. 

We have also worked with Fortinet a little bit. We switched to Check Point because our team is a perfect fit for it. We know the solution well.

Before using Check Point we were using WatchGuard, but it was not a good brand. Support from them was very difficult. We decided on Check Point because, first of all, their salespeople did a good job. In addition, their position in the market helped us decide to buy. Also, we are systems integrators and many of our customers use Check Point. Their feedback helped us make the decision to go with Check Point.

An important criterion when selecting a vendor is that the vendor has to provide support here in Peru. Our experience with WatchGuard not having a local representative was that the support was not good in terms of time of response as well as difficulties with the idioms of the language. We speak Spanish and the support was only in English, so it was difficult.

We are also using Fortinet FortiGate 600 and 200. We have also just ordered Palo Alto.