We performed a comparison between Azure Firewall and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Our project needs to link two sides through the internet. One of these was in Cairo and the other in another city. We used FortiGate as the integrating solution between the two locations, i.e. the Fortinet 30E & 100E."
"We have found it to be very reliable and that's why our teams and various users in our company use it as our main firewall every day."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"The most important features with FortiGate are the web filter and application controls. We can control our internet usage and use the web filter for application purposes."
"The solution is stable."
"The SD-WAN function is very developed. It has SD-WAN functionality with security features in one device. We can manage from one single console SD-WAN and the security policy."
"From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"The SIEM that Azure Firewall provides us is very robust."
"The initial setup is straightforward; Azure Firewall does not have a complex implementation process. It is very simple; you just need to enable the service within Azure. It does not require any maintenance because it is managed by Microsoft, that is, it is a fully managed service."
"Microsoft's technical support is very good. They're quite knowledgable and responsive."
"The solution has many useful features. For example, the solution allows users to create virtual IP addresses."
"We use the solution for application and server deployment."
"Azure Firewall is a cloud-native solution that removes the pain of load balancers."
"The most valuable feature is threat intelligence. It is based on filtering and can identify multiple threats."
"The solution should be capable of self-scaling, which is one of the features we like about it."
"The ease of deployment has been nice. It is like managing any of our on-prem firewalls."
"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has a beautiful threat emulation different from the market."
"What's most valuable to me is that it's a contiguous solution that aligns well with the components that we've relied on and trusted from a traditional hardware, firewall, and unified threat management system. My engineers and analysts don't have to learn another platform. We have already entrusted our security controls to Check Point for perimeter and physical security, and now we can do so at the virtual layer as well, which is key to us."
"The most valuable features are the VPN Blade, IPS Blade, the URL filtering, and the Applications Control Blade."
"The most valuable feature for us is the scale set, which allows us to scale horizontally, vertically and dynamically depending on the traffic load."
"The tool's most valuable features are the REST APIs that help to automate the deployment and maintenance process. It helps us to reduce time to 15-25 minutes compared to the manual process which used to take around two to three hours."
"I find it really useful that CloudGuard supports all the main players on the Public Clouds market including AWS, GCP, and Azure, as well as some exotic ones like Alibaba Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and IBM Cloud."
"The most valuable feature for me is that you have just one license. You can test and implement everything you need with one license. You do not need to pay for separate module licenses when you want IPS or other features."
"My only complaint about FortiGate is a lack of QinQ VLAN tunneling. I haven't found this feature in any Fortinet product. You can do this on all Cisco routers, including the smaller models. However, QinQ isn't available on the biggest, most expensive Fortinet units. They still don't have that. I think now we're on software version 6.0, and they still haven't found a solution for QinQ. It isn't a dealbreaker, but that's my main complaint."
"They've become quite expensive."
"The room for improvement is about the global delivery time period. Usually I need to wait for almost one month to deliver it overseas. So if you can shorten the deliver time it'd be great."
"The support system could be improved."
"There are some license issues. Not every feature must have a separate license. There must be some of kind synergy between the license so we don't have to pay for every individual license that we would like to have."
"The renewal price and the availability could be improved."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"We have an issue with hotel guest vouchers."
"There is room for further integration of AI into the system."
"There should be better monitoring and logging. Currently, it is put in Sentinel. It should be more seamless and from the interface."
"The reporting, logging, and monitoring features, as well as the flexibility of the policies, need to be improved."
"It would be much easier if the on-premises, firewall rules, had some kind of export-import possibility in place, which is not the case right now."
"Azure Firewall definitely needs a broader feature base. It should be able to go all the way up to layer 7 when looking at applications and things like that."
"Azure has new versions including a premium firewall. But I would like to see them not put the premium features on Azure Firewall Premium alone because it is quite expensive."
"The development area and QA area could be improved. With those improvements, we can improve projects and take even less time to implement them."
"It has fewer features than you can get from other firewalls, like anti-spam and anti-phishing. Those kinds of things are not included. It only includes IDS and IDB."
"Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM."
"Documentation might become too complex or too spread out, especially for newcomers."
"It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees."
"The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively."
"The deployment phase takes too much time."
"The solution is not that flexible when deploying on-prem."
"Check Point CloudGuard is not a feature-centric product because Check Point concentrates on security."
"New features have been introduced recently, but they have not yet been integrated into CloudGuard Vsec."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Firewall is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 33 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 119 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.2, while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Firewall writes "Easy to use and configure but could be more robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". Azure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Illumio. See our Azure Firewall vs. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
