Previously, I worked with Palo Alto, a direct competitor of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. CloudGuard Network Security's threat extraction features, reporting features, and threat emulation are better than Palo Alto's. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is more user-friendly than Palo Alto. On the other hand, Palo Alto has a bit better DNS security than Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

We did use a different solution and wanted to have better security capability and visibility.

I believe we had a WatchGuard firewall with other services coupled around it. It didn't necessarily do all of the protection that we needed, but that's what we had at the time.

We do use another vendor that does a similar function. The vendor is Fortinet. Both vendors have their own pros and cons. The big difference between the two from a cloud network security perspective is that the high availability model that Check Point has is not what the competitor has. So, you are still relying upon load balancers, and you are still relying upon cloud failover, which adds a little bit of complexity. This high availability has been a huge plus. We have not seen our current vendors or other vendors be able to do so. 

We, as such, have not switched. We have a different vendor we use, and we have not made the decision to switch. We are still at that deciding factor because we are seeing where things fit with both platforms. From an ROI perspective, switching would not be advantageous to us at this point based on what we are getting, but it is definitely something that is looked upon as we look at life cycles. We can then make a decision one way or the other to meet our business needs. 

The decision to go for CloudGuard instead of our cloud vendor's cloud firewall was predated. There were some implementations that were already there. We have made additional investments where we did go between vendor A and vendor B and made a decision. I made the decision and chose Check Point, not just for the single pane of glass and ease of management but also for the high availability. For the high availability that we were deploying, there was no other solution that could give us the seamlessness we were looking for. We could not get that from other vendors, so it became evident that going for Check Point was the right decision to make.

We did not use a similar solution previously.

We did not use any similar solution previously.

We did not specifically use any similar solution in the cloud. It was brand new.

We use McAfee solutions earlier due to the company and parent organization's long-term association with McAfee.

After subsequent years of usage, we felt a dire need of usage of advanced security solutions. After receiving continuous good feedback from peer organizations, we landed at Check Point.

It's been a great experience so far.

Before this project, we collaborated with a sister company that utilized Cisco ACI, but it didn't prove to be the right fit. Considering our longstanding partnership with Check Point as our security provider, particularly for network and cloud traffic, choosing CloudGuard for East-West traffic inspection seemed like a natural extension. Additionally, observing our sister company's positive experience with CloudGuard on Cisco ACI further reinforced our confidence in the product as the best solution for our needs.

I have no experience with a similar solution.

We started with this tool and have no intentions of leaving it soon.

We did not use another solution prior to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

We used our cloud vendor's security but did not get as many details when we had any issues. We immediately moved to Check Point, and we are more confident of Check Point.

At first, we used Azure and Defender, and before we changed to CheckPoint, we used ESET. So, we had ESET and then we started rolling out Check Point. We had a mix with the cloud vendor solution, and then we went for Check Point.

We opted for CloudGuard primarily due to two factors, which ultimately became three. 

• First was the Azure consumption cost, which was lower compared to competitors. 
• Secondly, its plug-and-play capability is straight out of the box, as deployment is directly made from the Azure Cloud Marketplace. In contrast, with competitors, you have to manually import and deploy the image they provide, which isn’t off the shelf. 
• The third factor was the scaling solution offered by CloudGuard, which we found to be the fastest.

I did not use a different solution previously. This solution is used in trial mode.

For this type of functionality we did not have a previous solution. We're building a new cloud data center, and this was our first cloud protection. But it's basically a firewall on the edge of a network.

We've had different firewalls on the edge of our other networks prior to this and we've consolidated those into the Check Point solution so that we've got just one vendor to deal with. We had some Juniper firewalls and some Cisco ASAs. We also had some WatchGuards and one old Palo Alto in there. It was a variety of solutions, depending on which network we were in. There was something of a long journey that took us two years or so to get to where we are now. We're almost there using one solution, one pane of glass, and one configuration.

We knew we needed to change because things were taking too much time. We weren't being efficient. We weren't able to get stuff done. Requests that were coming in were not being fulfilled properly. They were being half-done. There were too many different technologies that served the exact same purpose. It was incredibly inefficient because everybody needed to be trained up on every single one of them, including everything that they needed to do in their roles. Unless we wanted to hire four or five times the amount of staff so that we could have people specializing in just firewalls, we needed to change. To keep the same lean model, where we have people doing a variety of roles, we needed not to have to study 10 different things that serve the exact same purpose. So we decided that we were going to consolidate to one vendor.

In our decision to go with Check Point CloudGuard the favorable results of its security effectiveness score from third-party lab tests were a factor, but not really important. Our biggest deciding factor was what we had in the environment already; what we were most comfortable with. What was important was a solution that was the most feature-rich, and that could actually accomplish our goals the best among the vendors we already had. We didn't want to go with an entirely new vendor either, to leverage some of the knowledge we already had about them. We picked what we thought would serve us the best.

The fact that Check Point has been a leader, for many years, in industry reviews of network firewalls definitely affected our decision to go with it. They had to be a leader because with this — because of how important it is in our network — I was not ready to take a risk on a young, enterprising company that may be very creative in what it's doing but that will stumble more, along the way, than a company that is well-established.

We have been using the same solution from the beginning. 

We opted for CloudGuard Network Security after evaluating what Azure had to offer. It proved easy to manage, and the crucial aspect for us was the ability to see the activities on our central log system. We can see everything in the environment. 

The Check Point brand has always been used in our organization.

I have used NordLayer; however, the cost of maintenance was high.

We did not use any other solution before this.

We initially used on-premise solutions, starting with Juniper firewalls. However, when we migrated to Check Point for IPS protection, the experience was really good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

We've been loyal users of Check Point products for quite some time now. The company has a strong reputation in the industry, and I have more experience with Check Point products compared to others. It offers some of the best services available in the industry.

When comparing CloudGuard Network Security to other solutions for identifying security threats, it emerges as one of the leaders in the field. Our statistics demonstrate its effectiveness, with a notable ninety percent or higher success rate. Check Point covers the majority of our security needs, achieving a remarkable ninety-nine percent success rate, which is among the best in the industry. In terms of setup and reliability, we have a strong preference for CloudGuard.

We opted not to proceed with our vendor's cloud firewall solution because it lacked a comprehensive understanding of our network infrastructure. These solutions are primarily tailored to the specific environment of the vendor, which may not align with our needs. Instead, we prefer utilizing an NGFW appliance or a more versatile NBI device, such as those offered by Check Point. This approach allows us to avoid vendor lock-in and leverage familiar security devices. By partnering with third-party vendors like Check Point, we gain flexibility and can choose products specifically designed for security purposes. This contrasts with relying solely on the cloud service provider's offerings, which may prioritize their products over comprehensive security. In my opinion, solutions like those from Check Point offer a more mature and reliable approach to network security.

I have not worked with similar tools in the past.

I have not worked with a similar solution.

We have a different solution that works in silos and we are doing this PoC to check the functionality/features.

We did not have a similar previous solution. 

The favorable results of its security effectiveness score from third-party lab tests were not a major part of our consideration because Check Point is a known leader. There were no doubts about security.

As for the solution being a leader for many years in industry reviews of network firewalls, it is important to go with a solution that not only has good specs on paper, but also has a known record of success.

We had our native cloud firewall. Our native cloud firewalls lacked intrusion prevention and advanced malware protection. 

They offered basic stateful firewalling, and we wanted a more robust solution for our security needs.

When we designed our cloud architecture, Check Point was the primary solution we chose.

Check Point's management interface is easier to use compared to products like Palo Alto's Panorama and FortiManager. 

Palo Alto and FortiManager are more complicated than CloudGuard.

When it comes to identifying security threats, CloudGuard is on par with other solutions. While Palo Alto doesn't have zero-day protection, it ultimately depends on how customers configure their security rules.

We evaluated using the Microsoft Defender for Cloud tool for a while, however we needed to centralize our security environment and not have portals for different sites.

When comparing CloudGuard Network Security to other solutions like Fortinet and Palo Alto Firewalls, they are similar in terms of identifying security threats. They all offer robust features such as antivirus, deep packet inspection, and IPS. Some of our customers have transitioned from Palo Alto to Check Point. While I don't have specific reasons, it could be related to factors like pricing.

We deployed our AWS environment in tandem with our CloudGuard deployment. There were individual pieces of AWS that we were using that we've replaced with CloudGuard, but those pieces were more on the Dome9 side than anything, like flow log exports, that we were able to consolidate back into Dome9 and CloudGuard.

We never found a solution we were satisfied with, and which would not affect our overall operational performance.

Previously, we used Microsoft Defender for a cloud solution. It's a very good tool, however, Microsoft is new in this field.

We didn't have any logical separation of security solutions before implementing this product.

We were using native AWS protection.

We also use solutions by FireMon, AlgoSec, and Akamai. We're constantly comparing products and looking for ways to get more features with less money. Akamai has more solutions, whereas Check Point is more specialized. 

It's a very comprehensive solution. However, we have not found any other solution that generates the same level of security as Check Point.

I have only used the built-in solutions from Azure. 

CloudGuard is easier to understand. CloudGuard is very easy to translate and easy to incorporate features. CloudGuard has better features like packet filters, EPS, threat prevention, and filtering.

We chose CloudGuard because of the visibility. It's much better.

We have always been a Check Point customer.

Choosing between Palo Alto and Check Point is more of a personal preference based on the management you prefer. However, in terms of protection, both provide a comparable level of security, making you feel equally safe. The choice between Palo Alto and Check Point often depends on the customer. If a customer is already using Palo Alto, it might be challenging to convince them to switch to Check Point. 

We did not previously use a different solution. 

I have worked with other products and find that this is the better solution when compared to other vendors in the market.

We didn't use such solutions before and had to rely on the built-in firewall rules of the Google Cloud Platform infrastructure.

We used to replace cloud-native solutions from Azure directly or AWS. We don't implement those originally.

It's important for us because we have had a lot of traditional customers. Then, it's a good way to extend this security to the new deployments in public clouds. It's very important for us. 

Additionally, the customer is going to find another choice in the market.

I also work with Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. 

The other vendors, they're not doing that well in terms of cloud security, as they tend to concentrate on on-prem security. The physical security, that's at the endpoint level. However, Check Point is doing quite well in terms of cloud security. 

I am currently also working on Cisco ASA, Fortinet, and Palo Alto.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

We did not use anything previously. Going to the cloud was a new requirement for us.

From a firewall perspective, yes, we use some other solution, however, CloudGuard is basically filling a gap in the cloud area. Before them, of course, we didn't use any other thing. We were using something else that wasn't really related and when we moved to Check Point was when we first adopted CloudGuard.

I have not previously used any solutions. 

We deploy a variety of products for our clients depending on their needs. Check Point is one of the most reliable.

No previous solution used.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

No previous solution. It's always been Check Point, though before the virtual firewall we used to have a Juniper fw. Now we are just Check Point because for the threats we face now, I don't think we need different firewalls at different layers.

We are currently moving from Check Point to Fortinet. We haven't yet started to use Fortinet, however. It's a work in progress.

We were not on the cloud before. We're a big Check Point customer. Our secure perimeter is checkpoint, so we needed security for the cloud. So, it was a pretty easy decision right there. We evaluated other vendors, but it was easy decision.

We are replacing three old cluster ASA firewalls and concentrating it into an all-in-one VSX cluster. This allows our central management have more time for other tasks.

We did not use any other solution previously.

I also have experience with Cisco Firepower and Fortinet.