We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and SonicWall NSa 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."The VPN is the most valuable feature."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"The technical support is great."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution."
"The notifications, the visibility, and the deployment are the most valuable. It could be packaged in such a way that it took a lot of time and resources off our hands, so it was more efficient."
"It is a good-to-use tool that is also flexible."
"It really is a pretty complete solution."
"I like the firewall and the virtual machine. I also like that it's compatible with Amazon Web Services and Azure."
"The scalability is very good; again, very user-friendly. I wouldn't even say "user-friendly" because, as long as you deploy it properly, you can kill an EC2 and it will spin up another one right away, within about a minute and a half. And it will be ready for production right away."
"CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. It's very important because when I have unified security, I have better control of the situation. If there's an attack or something like that, we can react faster. It's easier for everyone in the organization to work with the Infinity platform."
"Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet."
"The most valuable feature I have found in CloudGuard Network Security is the flexibility to rebuild the firewall as needed."
"The most valuable features are flexibility, ease of setup, and it's a good product cost-wise."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the GUI pre-filtering and the ATP (advanced threat protection)."
"Setup is easy. Anyone with basic firewall experience can do it."
"I like this solution because we are focused on VPN and have many brands that need to link a VPN and have security, like ransomware, spyware, and basic protection."
"It's very flexible and meets our customer's needs."
"The most valuable feature is the sandbox."
"I like the solution's configuration, interfaces, and user guides."
"The stability is better than other products."
"They need faster serviceability and more security features."
"We would like to see an upgrade to the VPN feature, we are using the VPN from outside of our office and there is a limitation to 10 connections, more connections would be suitable."
"It could use better throughput on some of the smaller boxes for the branch offices."
"Its reporting can be improved. Sometimes, I don't get proper reports."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having a frequent ask questions(FAQ) area for people to receive quick answers to popular questions. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have an SMS notification feature. For example, if you cannot access your email you could receive an SMS message."
"If I had any criticism that I would give FortiGate, it would be that they need to stop changing their logging format. Every time we do a firmware upgrade, it is a massive issue on the SIM. Parsers have to be rebuilt. Even the FortiGate guys came in and said that they don't play well in the sandbox."
"The performance could be a bit better. Right now, I find it to be lacking. Having good performance is very important for our work."
"The web-cache feature which was previously on the FortiGate device, but was deleted with the recent upgrade should be returned. It was a very valuable feature for us."
"The product needs to improve technical support."
"There is room for improvement, especially concerning the integration with the management center. It would be beneficial if tasks that currently require scripts could be performed directly from the GUI."
"The complexity to deploy should be decreased."
"We did not use the AWS Transit Gateway, and that's one of the things that we're currently using. I believe we will be working with Check Point again, in the near future, to implement it, once they start having proper support for a single customer with multiple accounts. When we were using them, we had to install Check Point on each and every single account."
"While Check Point does offer some VWAN offerings, they appear to be more static and less tailored to cloud-native environments compared to Palo Alto's dynamic and flexible approach."
"While today we can manage some scopes, there are still some segments in the OSI layer we cannot manage."
"The product needs to improve support. They don't consider my case the number one priority even though I want a quick resolution."
"We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations."
"Do not even consider NetExtender - probably one of the most horrific, nightmare grade Java-based VPN clients. We have but all given up trying to make it work reliably."
"I feel that the SSL VPN client software needs a lot of improvement."
"The product must enable integration with endpoint protection tools."
"The cost could be lower. There could also be more flexibility for smaller companies."
"I would like to see better integration."
"The only thing that we would want would be single-pane management, which it has, but the GMS is not very good. It's purely the management of multiple devices for multiple customers, that's the only thing that it's lacking."
"The content ID needs to be improved."
"They should consider upgrading the capabilities within the GUI."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 119 reviews while SonicWall NSa is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 77 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while SonicWall NSa is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall NSa writes "Great performance and security with reasonable pricing". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas SonicWall NSa is most compared with SonicWall TZ, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall and Netgate pfSense. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. SonicWall NSa 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.