We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] Competitors and Alternatives

Competitor
# Comparisons
Rating
Get our free report covering , and other competitors of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL]. Updated: September 2021.
540,694 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] competitors and alternatives

Shashidhara B N
Director - Technology Solutions & Services at Connectivity IT Services Private Limited
Real User
Top 20
This best in class Next-Gen firewall is elegant in its ease-of-use and architecture

Pros and Cons

  • "Juniper is one of the most powerful network security solutions while remaining simple to use, set up, and scale."
  • "It could have features that other products support like blade options and stand-alone endpoint security."

What is our primary use case?

For different customers, we use the product in different ways. In some cases, it is going to be an on-premises solution. In some cases, it is going to be a cloud-integrated solution. That is one of the best things about Juniper. We can use a single box and have the same unified policy structure if it is off the cloud or it is on-premises.  

Our primary use case is basically to use it like you would any other firewall. I do not call this a firewall anymore because it has functionality beyond what we traditionally think of as a firewall. Those days are gone where a firewall does just one thing. Today most of the firewall products are station firewalls. You have various options in each firewall station. In terms of comparison, you can compare Juniper with Cisco, with Fortinet, with Palo Alto and other leading products. It depends on what exactly you are planning to have it do.  

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for me over-all is that Juniper is simplified and can still do everything that is necessary to be effective. 

On the SRX box, it has what I call a one model concept for security. I work especially with hybrid environments. With an SRX we have a single management dashboard. We can manage the internal framework easily with the centralized management component. You can work with the threat prevention, you can work with the integration, you can work with traffic management. Another good part about SRX is that you have opportunities for automation. Another thing that is very good is that all the operating systems for all Juniper boxes are the same. You do not work on different operating systems using different boxes. 

It does user validation automatically and has automated threat detection and defense. It does threat analytics, which is integrated. So as a single box, it does not just address security, it does not just handle switching, it does not just work as a firewall. It addresses everything.  

What needs improvement?

I have not given a lot of thought as to what needs to be improved because so much of technology and capabilities are expanding.  

Probably Juniper could come up with their own dedicated endpoint security. Today they have an integration with Sophos. If you really look at what SRX has as far as antivirus capability, it is really only the integration with Sophos. Sophos is good, I am not saying Sophos is a bad solution. But Juniper having their own antivirus solution may be a batter idea to make it a stand-alone product.  

If you look at Check Point. They have a lot of experience in the area of security which is integrated with their product. In comparison, Juniper could start developing its own strong capabilities with antivirus and have its own security which may even surpass relying on Sophos. Sophos could improve more but it is definitely a wonderful architecture.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I have around 22 years of experience with various similar products. My experience for the last 10 years has been on Juniper. I have worked on Cisco, on Foundry, and on Xstream. And you can make comparisons with products like Fortinet and Palo Alto next-generation firewalls.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I would rate stability on a scale of one to ten. If ten is best, I would rate a nine-point-five. I would not rate anything a ten in this industry in any case because nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement. It is very robust. Because the product is robust and very agile that carries over well into the potential for reliability.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

When it comes to scalability, basically Juniper is modular. The SRX architecture is very important. Say I am a small-time customer with 50 people in my company and I deploy on the SRX 300 Series. If my business grows exponentially and I now have 500 people in the company. My traffic has boosted significantly — say about ten times what it was. I do not have to really worry. Within one hour, I can just switch and get a new SRX box in place. Let's say I go with the 500 Series or the 4000 Series. This is my new capacity.

The change over is so simple, because the architecture is common. Whether you talk about SRX 300 or you talk about the service provider architecture, it is the same thing except for the capability to expand and handle the volume. That is very important from a technical perspective, which normally you only need one tech person to deploy.  

For mid-sized companies or even large-sized companies, you have a lot of clients from SRX 300 to SRX 5000 Series and the product line covers all the options. This is from a very basic server-level SRX box to the Next-Generation Firewall and advanced threat mitigation.  

But one thing that scalability should really take into account is that Juniper is an enterprise product. If you are really only talking about using the Sophos UTM or only want to use the product like a firewall, then you should consider a UTM box. If you then want to add an SD-WAN as an additional part of the architecture, the UTM is not the right choice. You just take an SRX box and you have SD-WAN on that. You can have a firewall on that. You can have a UTM on that. You can integrate with the cloud. You can integrate with Linux infrastructure. You can have network security.  

Today when we talk about Check Point, we talk about Next-Generation Firewalls. That includes the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall and Cisco Next-Generation. But no one talks about what the definition of Next-Gen is. The only difference about Next-Generation is that it has a staple firewall, by definition.  

If you are a small company and you only have five in your office, obviously you want a secure network. To do this you will buy a simple firewall. When you think of the most simple firewall, people buy a router. Then people buy a switch. Then people buy a firewall. Three devices. I would say, do not buy anything. Just buy one SRX box, which does all the three.  

Now I can also expand the same SRX 300 with a branch location. Let's say, I'm a bank customer. I have branches. Simple, I can now have the simplest of SRX 300 at all my branches or SRX 500. I just connect to my main SRX, let's say a 1500 Series with an SD-WAN topology. The project is done. Simple. I secure my network. I handle my routing. I handle my security. And I have an option for just enabling the license to get the latest threat mitigation.  

For comparison, let's take a very big enterprise network. Maybe I was the head of Informatica at APAC. I am in a situation where I have 6000 R&D developers in the organization. We monitor our total performance. Latency on the firewall should be as low as possible. This is especially critical with the current environment where people work from home. Everyone who is working from home now because of COVID has all their data still in the office and people come onto the network to get connected from home to the office.  

Imagine the load on my firewall in that situation. All the people from inside my organization are sitting outside of the office now accessing the data in the internal network through the firewall. Imagine all the data tracking is coming from all over like an external traffic base. You need to have the proper solution to handle the change in traffic and scalability is the most important factor in this case for successfully running a demanding environment.  

How are customer service and technical support?

Juniper support is very good. But more than the technical support, their documentation is awesome. You can just Google a solution right now by stating your problem. You get into the juniper.net and there is wonderful documentation. As a technical person, I have never seen any technical documentation that is as good. I would say it is awesome. Any person who has an interest to learn, who has the interest to scale his capability with the product, just has to go to the Juniper site and they will get all the information on every one of their products. I think that it is written well enough for a non-technical person to become technical.  

They have different levels of training available. They make it very easy and available for anybody to explore the solution. There are knowledgeable people available in the technical community. It is a very good solution overall.  

How was the initial setup?

I consider the setup for the product to be very easy. A basic technical person can do it. But, a person would need to know the capability of a robust box like SRX to make full use of the capabilities and the right choice of the product.  

You install the box, configure the hostname, a password, and set your IP address. By default, Juniper handles the basic configurations automatically. The control frame architecture is very nice. The whole platform architecture is very good. When you work with that box, you just divide the box into two layers: the top layer and the bottom layer. The top layer is exclusively made for the SRX box. The bottom layer is nothing but throughput where the packets get in and get out. We call it a packet forwarding engine, PFE.  

Initiating the routing packets actually go in the mapping connection between the top and the bottom, which is managed as with Oracle in an internal zone. The box is already secured when an attack happens. Nothing is 100% in the world. So, there is the possibility of an attack but at least the control center protects your network.  

The entire installation is just a couple of hours. It depends on the Oracle sizing. Let's say that you want to work on the agility of SRX, something you really need to understand is where you are deploying this product. It is different if you are comparing an SRX box or the cloud. When you are using an SRX box will it be deployed for a small enterprise, a mid-size enterprise, and a data center. You can have SRX boxes for a large data center. That is a difference in the agility of Juniper SRX compared to Cisco. For example, when I work with the cloud, I have an SRX virtual firewall, which is a high-performance network security in the virtual cloud. It is especially good for rapid deployments. It hardly takes hours to deploy on the cloud.  

When you have a container with a firewall, it is known as cSRX. Which is again, a highly available container firewall. These are used especially for microservices. When you start with a small enterprise you start with either the SRX 300 series or a 500 series, which is a next-generation firewall. It is comparable to the Cisco ASA. Probably the next good product to compare is Check Point. But the SRX product is easier to manage and deploy when compared to Check Point or Cisco.  

For the mid-size enterprise organization, we have the SRX 1400 Series or you can consider the 4000 Series. It is just an appliance. You just plug it in, switch it on, configure the network IP address, and then start configuring the protocols. You enable the licenses there, malware prevention, and all the other features you want by just adding on to the licenses.  

So it is just a matter of choosing the right appliance and from there it is practically plug-and-play. The challenge is not the initial setup and deployment, it is what you make use of.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

The main competitors for Juniper are Palo Alto, Check Point, and Cisco. Juniper has a lot of features that are good for engineering. Things like Fortinet and Cyberoam can not really compete with these others when it comes to these important features. Specifically, when you talk about Juniper SRX you talk about cloud deployment. You talk about malware remediation. You talk about reporting analytics. You talk about quarantining or threat intelligence (Unified Threat Management or UTM). You talk about data throttle, control prevention, email, web analysis, and integrated management. It can even just work as a router or assisting layer. It works best especially in large networks — like when you talk about service providers — where you have huge traffic flow. It is built to have flexibility and ease-of-use.  

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anyone considering Juniper as a solution would be to first understand that the product needs to be chosen to fit the environment. You want to get the one right box that has the capacity you need. You have everything you need in the model by just updating your license. You do not have to look for a new box when your traffic remains under the upper limits of the capacity. If you are under the limitations of the capacity, the traffic goes straight out, unimpeded.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Juniper SRX as a nine or even a nine-point-five overall. Additional features that could be added to make this solution a ten that other competitors have would technically make it the best product. For example, Check Point offers Blade Architecture. You just keep adding more and more blades. Because of this, Check Point — especially in the area of their security database — they are quite superior to Juniper. o there is room for improvement.  

When you really study on an enterprise level where Check Point stands out or where Juniper stands out, you have got to look into the way each product fits your needs. I mean Check Point is currently easy-to-use, and very good, global product. It also has quite a good rating from the industry over the past few years. Certainly, someone considering a purchase needs to consider options and trends.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Manuel Gellida
Owner at Dinamica en Microsistemas de Informatica, S.A. de C.V.
Reseller
Top 10
Easy to use and deploy with an improved pricing structure in place

Pros and Cons

  • "The initial setup is pretty easy."
  • "They need to allow their solution to integrate with other products and not just other Sophos solutions."

What is our primary use case?

My clients are mostly based in the government. They are my core clients. I install the solution for my clients.

What is most valuable?

The solution is very easy to use. 

Of course, we have the skills, however, it's very easy for us to deploy the solution. That's one of the valuable features. 

They have a communication between the endpoint and the firewall which is very, very useful for security purposes.

Pricing is now pretty good. They changed the pricing structure a few months ago.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

What needs improvement?

The integration could be a bit better. They need to allow their solution to integrate with other products and not just other Sophos solutions.

Sophos has a feature that in my opinion is very limited. They don't have enough VPNs on their models. They have the XG 750, which is a sizeable appliance. On those models, they used to have not enough VPNs. They always were short on that area. 

Pricing used to be very bad, however, they've adjusted their strategy recently. 

The product needs to improve its marketing in Mexico. It's not a well-recognized product in our country.

The solution's technical support is very bad.

There is an overall lack of documentation in relation to features and capabilities. We need these to help explain aspects of the solution to our clients. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used the solution since around 2014. I have about six years of experience at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely worked with the product in the last 12 months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash and freeze. It's quite reliable. We don't have problems with it.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is very scalable. It is not a problem. Sometimes we have issues when we are trying to do something with a different traditional version of hardware as sometimes the new hardware has more ports. However, if we are talking about scalability in a huge customer, we can do it very easily. 

Mexico is very different than other countries and continents as here, when we say it's a big customer, we are talking about 2,000 to maybe 3,000 users. There aren't too many large-scale operations in the country. However, in general, for our area, we tend to deal with large-scale companies.

For a company that has maybe 1,000 users, Sophos seems to work very well. We have one operation with 10,000 endpoints and it is working quite well.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support from Sophos is very bad.

Sometimes we lose a project due to the fact that we need to solve some issues or answer questions. Things that may be technical but also involve the administrative side. I'm talking about licensing and the capabilities of the feature. We need some documentation, something we can show clients. They can better in those cases. They can either help us or supply us with what we need. 

In response time, they are terrible. In the area of technical knowledge, they are getting better, however, they aren't where they need to be. Right now, we are not satisfied with the level of support provided.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is not complex. However, here in Mexico, it's very complex to sell the product. The brand is not as well known.

That said, the process is pretty straightforward. 

The deployment times vary. It depends on the end-user and what they need. Sometimes, it's easy as they don't have too many policies. The more policies they have, the longer it takes.

In other cases, clients may have a lot of VPNs. We have to work on those VPNs, and we have to do a lot of routing. However, that depends on the customer. Not all are like that.

For one appliance, you just need one person for deployment and maintenance. If we are working a lot of VPNs, we would have to use more people. We need to involve maybe two or three individuals and re-apply the configuration in that case. 

What about the implementation team?

We handle the installation process ourselves. We do not need the assistance of consultants.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing has recently changed on Sophos. Their licensing and cost structures are much more clear now. It's much better than it was.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Clients, in many cases, evaluate for Check Point, Forcepoint, and sometimes Fortinet. Occasionally, they may look at SonicWall, or Palo Alto however, the others are the main big competitors. 

Palo Alto is very expensive as are Check Point and Forcepoint. That's why we sometimes win the projects. We find Fortinet, is very, very hard to beat as they have a lot of market share, have a lot of marketing. Sophos doesn't have that presence, that marketing. Also, when you have to think about prices, Fortinet gives customers everything and it's hard to beat.

The biggest issue I've found with Sophos is the small number of VPNs that we can do compared to a similar appliance with Fortinet or in the same level center. In fact, many other brands offer more VPNs than Sophos.

What other advice do I have?

I'm a Sophos reseller.

We use multiple versions. We have worked with XG 460 and XG 135 and some others -such as XG 230. In those cases, sometimes it has been Rev 1 and in other cases Rev 2 in terms of the hardware versions.

I mostly work with on-premise deployments. The only item I have installed in the cloud is an email solution by Sophos.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
Flag as inappropriate
RF
Data Analyst at a hospitality company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
User-friendly, provides good access, and is fairly easy to implement

Pros and Cons

  • "It is a very user-friendly product."
  • "I don't have to see all the object groups that have been created on that firewall. That's just something that I would really appreciate on the CLA, even though it already exists on the GUI."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution in order to create access rules. That's what I use it for mostly. Sometimes, if I need to do some mapping, I may also leverage this product.  

What is most valuable?

In terms of access, the solution is great at making sure that the firewall has the right IPs, or that the right IPs are passing through where they should be. 

The product does a good job of making sure that the connection is one that the user can trust. It keeps everything secure.

From what I've already done with ASA, I've noted that it's a very simple solution. 

It is a very user-friendly product. I started with the GUI version. There are different versions. You could have the CLA, and the GUI version if you like. Both are really user-friendly and they're easy to learn. 

What needs improvement?

We haven't been working with the product for too long, and therefore I haven't really found any features that are lacking. So far, it's been pretty solid.

One of the things that would make my life easier on ASA, especially for the CLA, is if it had an ASBN feature, specifically for the CLA. This would allow you to be able to see at once where a particular object group is being used without having to copy out all the object groups that have already been created.

I don't have to see all the object groups that have been created on that firewall. That's just something that I would really appreciate on the CLA, even though it already exists on the GUI.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for six months now. It's been less than a year. It hasn't been too long just yet.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution has been quite stable.

Most of the clients that we deal with use this solution. No one has ever complained about having a breach or anything, to the best of my knowledge, even though we see some people combine different firewalls together, and use them alongside Cisco ASA. So far, we've not had any issue with Cisco ASA. It's reliable and keeps our clients safe.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I've never tried to scale the product. I haven't worked with it too long at this point. I wouldn't be able to comment on its scalability potential.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've never dealt with technical support yet. I can't speak to their level or response or their knowledge of the product.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

In the past, I've worked with Check Point and Fortinet as well.

How was the initial setup?

I've been handling the implementation. So far, it's been good, even with no prior knowledge of the solution itself. It's my first time working with it.

On my team, lots of people are working on different aspects, and most of the setup is being done by those that have more knowledge about the firewall than we have. We don't have anything to do with the setup, we just make sure that we implement whatever connections the clients already have. It's already broken down that way, just to avoid as many mistakes as possible.

We already have a process for implementation based on the number of connections. The maximum we normally work on each connection is maybe 20 to 30 minutes. However, the process could be as little as one minute. It depends on how many connections we want to add at a time.

What about the implementation team?

We're handing the implementation via our own in-house team.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I'm just handling the implementation and therefore don't have any insights on the pricing aspect of the solution. I wouldn't be able to say how much the company pays or if the pricing is high or low.

That said, the pricing isn't an issue. It's more about what's best for the customer or the client. We want to give the client the best service, and very good protection. If a client begins to worry about pricing, we can't exactly guarantee the same level of safety.

What other advice do I have?

Our company has a partnership with Cisco.

We have different clients and therefore use different versions of the solution. Nobody wants to use an out-of-date version, and therefore, we work to keep everything updated.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
UB
Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Top 5
Easy to configure and manage, supports link load balancing, and it has superior throughput

Pros and Cons

  • "The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing."
  • "If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."

What is our primary use case?

We are a system integrator and Fortigate is one of the firewalls that we implement for our clients. I am a solution architect.

Our primary use for this firewall is the IPS.

What is most valuable?

One of the things I like best is the ease of configuration.

Management-wise, it is very good.

The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing.

The firewall throughput is very good. Most of the customers in this region use FortiGate for their data center firewalls, and the main reason is because of its high throughput.

What needs improvement?

Fortinet is good in terms of security and threat prevention, but they are not leading. For example, the signature database can be improved.

If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement. Customers that have ISE implemented are able to provide inputs based on malicious traffic, and then ISE will automatically block it.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been working with Fortinet FortiGate for the past two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Stability-wise, they are good at the job of a data center firewall. For a perimeter firewall, it is for smaller customers, preferably.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability depends on the design and how it was done. You have to think about the next five years. We get lots of new updates on the older versions and if the product is still in support then the new features will be included.

How are customer service and technical support?

The responsiveness of the support depends on the level of support that you have. If you have premium support then you will get immediate access to them. Otherwise, you have to wait for some time, perhaps an hour, before they get back to you.

On the technical details, there are different levels of access. Once you have engineer access then most of the cases are going to get resolved, or otherwise, they will go to their development team.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

In addition to FortiGate, we are using Cisco SFR.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. We have field configuration guides that we follow and you don't need to have much in-depth knowledge to set it up initially. However, performing the fine-tuning requires that you have proper training on the device.

Deploying the firewall for a new customer will be completed within two to three days, or perhaps a week at the most.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Compared to vendors like Cisco and Palo Alto, FortiGate is the cheapest. However, they only have a small segment of the market. Fortinet is trying to appeal to small and medium-sized customers, and I think that their prices should be a little lower for this segment.

On the high-end devices, it is fine. However, the problem is that their subscription price is very high. If you purchase a one-year subscription with the hardware and then you want to renew for the second year, it is very costly. Your whole price ends up being very high.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

As a system integrator, we sell a lot of similar solutions from a variety of vendors. We have found that the Fortinet firewall has a much better throughput than that of the other vendors.

If a large customer is looking for a perimeter firewall then we suggest another vendor, such as Check Point or Palo Alto.

What other advice do I have?

FortiGate is a product that we recommend and we have migrated many customers from other vendors. FortiGate is a better option, although small customers don't care much about security. They only care about basic security. There are only a very few who are really concerned about it and most of them don't have a proper IT group in their company. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PF
IT Specialist at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Reliable, easy to use, and offers strong security feaures

Pros and Cons

  • "Palo Alto has better and finer controls than, say, Cisco or Check Point."
  • "The solution needs a series of OS changes."

What is our primary use case?

The solution was a firewall that bridged the internal systems with their DMC equipment and/or restricted systems access that wasn't generally available to anyone outside of the organization.

How has it helped my organization?

The solution gets the access controls down to an even more precise part of the network traffic. It's not just any user going to an IP address or going to a port to get on the network. It's very thorough.

What is most valuable?

Our organization liked the fact that it wasn't just firewalls that handled addresses and ports. It also handles actual URL inspections. 

The solution is at the cutting edge of technology. 

The solution has good at controlling restricted access.

Palo Alto has better and finer controls than, say, Cisco or Check Point.

The solution is very strong from a security standpoint.

What needs improvement?

It's like anything else. What's good today might not be in a day, a week, a month, etc. The solution needs to constantly be adapting and updating.

The solution needs a series of OS changes.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the solution for five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is rather excellent. It is really stable unless somebody messes up a configuration. We didn't face any bugs or crashes or have any issues with glitches.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution was scalable for our purposes. We distributed it to three or four different locations and these were all internal edge firewalls. It wasn't more than a half a day to get any new location up, once the network equipment was in place. (For example, switch hardware, cables, etc.). We would just bring in the hardware, set it up, connect to it, and finish turning it on.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is excellent. There haven't been problems that they couldn't resolve quickly. Pretty much are all cases that we had were dealt with to our satisfaction.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to Palo Alto, we had been using Check Point. There wasn't a technical reason that we switched. As an organization, we just periodically switch technologies.

How was the initial setup?

I can't really answer any questions related to the initial setup as there was another person who handled it. However, I do believe it was straightforward for them. My understanding was that deployment only took a day. It wasn't a long process.

What about the implementation team?

For the initial deployment, I'm pretty sure they used a subject matter expert. After that, the organization did not need outside assistance. One of our own team members ended up becoming the subject matter expert for a lot of the implementation strategy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't have an idea of what the licensing costs are.

What other advice do I have?

I'd advise companies considering setting up the solution to make sure they have a trained team. If the team doesn't have any expertise with this type of firewall, then they've got to take some training. The training's pretty good and once you understand the concepts, it's pretty quick to put together. 

At the time we implemented it, it was easier than Check Point and the Check Point had a lot of similar capabilities. It also offered finer filtering on what was going to be allowed through various parts of the firewall ports. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten due to its reliability and ease, and the consistency of configuration.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering , and other competitors of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL]. Updated: September 2021.
540,694 professionals have used our research since 2012.