Since we had a Check Point firewall, we used the Check Point VPN for a specific line.

I used Forticlient VPN also. However, the Forticlient VPN had no visibility on traffic and we required better security for our organization.

I have experience with Citrix NetScaler since it is the only product that I have used as a remote access VPN tool.

I feel Check Point Remote Access VPN is better than Citrix NetScaler.

We did not use a different solution earlier.

We used Aventail SonicWALL as a standalone product. We switched because it was expensive in terms of management and maintenance. As we already had Check Point NGFW, it was easy to enable the VPN on the same device.

I have experience with Cisco. Though Cisco is one of the latest products that we deal with right now, my company has been more friendly with Check Point. My company prefers Check Point since it is easy and more user-friendly for us. Cisco is not that much of a user-friendly product since it requires highly skilled people and more engineers to operate it.

We previously used Cisco AnyConnect. Both solutions are similar. However, the difference lies in the security features rather than the networking aspects.

Ultimately, the decision was made to expand and implement Check Point for the entire user base. This choice was reasonable based on the circumstances and the initial security in Check Point. We also had a phase where we utilized both solutions simultaneously. Eventually, due to our requirements, switching solely to Check Point proved to be the more precise decision, aligning with our corporate requirements.

We did use a different solution and we switched due to the fact that Check Point is more secure and has more features for the type of connections we need.

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

I have not worked with different solutions.

Previous to Check Point, we didn't have any gateway security.

I've used Palo Alto and Sophos, among other solutions. I've used a few different solutions. 

We used a different solution that did not satisfy us in terms of security. As a result, we decided to deploy Check Point for enhanced security.

Before migrating to the Check Point firewall, we conducted market research and solicited feedback from my contacts who are already Check Point NGFW customers. We decided to use Check Point.

At our organization, we did not use another solution before this. That said, I have used other products in the past. It's been many years, so I'm sure those other vendors have had time to update their products too, however, since I've been managing Remote Access with Check Point, I've always been really impressed.

This is the first time we are using this type of solution.

I have not worked with another VPN.

I have no experience with any similar solution.

I had used Fortinet Remote Access VPN before. At that time, other security features like Firewall, IPS, Application Control, and URL Filtering had been added to the same box running Remote Access VPN. The Fortinet appliance was overloaded all the time - although specifications in the datasheet could be OK. After changing to Check Point (using Remote Access VPN with other security features), the performance was amazing. CPU and memory usages were always at an average level.

We did not use a different solution.

Earlier, we had a traditional VPN, which did not help in running our business seamlessly. 

We used ForcePoint before. In comparison, Check Point Remote Access VPN is stable and easy to connect.

Previously we have used FortiClient to solve VPN problems. At some point, we also used the Azure P2S VPN. However, it does not provide security.

We used to use Fortinet. We switched because it was hard to deploy. 

I have worked with Sophos and Array Networks. Check Point’s stability is better compared to other tools. I have frequently faced disconnection and other issues with other products.

On a personal level, I had previously used Cisco and Azure VPN, among others, however, the control generated with Check Point is not the same. It is much better.

We were using Cyberoam.

I previously used Mikro Tik VPN which is cheap and includes enterprise features but is hard to configure.

We did not previously use a different solution.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

I have used Microsoft Defender Endpoint previously. I found it to be much more user-friendly than Check Point Remote Access VPN.

Prior to this product, we didn't use any centralized VPN software before.

There was no previous solution that was used prior to this product.

Yes, we were using CIsco ASA on-premises. We switched because we were moving our data center infrastructure onto the cloud.

Migration has taken place such as from Cisco to Check Point and Sophos to Check Point. During that phase, the customer needed to change the VPN client as well.

Browser-based functionality is one of the best things that Check Point provides.

We did use something else previously. I want to say it was some kind of a VNC Viewer things with a certificate. It's very basic and crappy. 

We switched because we need more features, like the RSA token involvement. We also like that we were using another Check Point solution and could integrate with that.

We still use other products.

Our team finds that Pulse Security is a bit difficult to configure. It's not very straightforward. We are used to it now. Management is easier on Check Point. Our managers wanted us to have to study some alternatives to Pulse Secure so that if the price was too high, or if we wanted to move to another solution, we would already have an idea about other solutions. We chose Check Point as we already had the firewall. It has worked well until now. We already have some people using the Check Point VPN and we are ready to move everyone. 

Pulse Secure was more difficult because of all the things that you need to for the setup. You need to do four or five things to set up a profile and some of them don't make any sense. It's difficult for a person that's never used Pulse to understand the philosophy of the configuration and to create different profiles. It's not very straightforward.