We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls based on our users’ reviews in four categories. Our conclusion is presented below.
Comparison Results: Our users feel Check Point NGFW is the better choice for NG Firewalls. Users appreciate its unique multi-layer, multi-blade approach. Additionally, the central management station allows users to manage everything in one place, helping to improve overall performance. The great price, support, and performance make this a great choice.
"Overall security features and performance routing is good."
"Fortinet FortiGate appears to be scalable."
"The web filtering feature and the intrusion protection system are the most valuable. It is a resilient appliance. I never had an issue with it in terms of any security breaches."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"It's a firewall that secures our internal network. I have been using it since 2013, and I find that most of the features are advanced, and very user friendly."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ability to work in proxy mode, which other solutions, such as Palo Alto cannot. There are some features that are better that come at no extra license or subscriptions cost, such as basic SD-WAN. The DLT is useful, other solutions have the same feature too, such as Palo Alto."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is security. They are known for efficiency and are on the top of Gartner Quadrant reviews. Fortinet FortiGate has an easy-to-use platform with a good graphical interface. The configuration is simple and the solution provides an overall good layer of security."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"It also gives us a single console for everything. Rather than having one device for URL filtering and a different device as a firewall, this gives us everything in one place."
"We are delighted with the powerful management console and diagnostic tools."
"The QoS blade is very good for controlling traffic such as Windows patches, mail traffic and other stuff."
"Check Point firewalls have significantly improved our ability to detect and prevent threats."
"It offers services like navigation, control, and filtering, which ensure that all users stay connected to business applications."
"We can decipher the activity of each connection and see what is inside it."
"The solution is easy to use. I like the monitoring the most."
"With the new SmartTask offered in R80.40, we will be happy to configure some automatic control-functions."
"The DNS sync code in your filtering is the most valuable feature of the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls."
"GlobalProtect and App-ID features are very good."
"The user experience is good and the configuration is very easy."
"Mechanically, all firewalls work in a similar fashion, but what makes Palo Alto different is that it also has some of the threat hunt capabilities. It is a little bit better than other vendors."
"The fact that the Next-Gen firewalls are integrated with identity is the best. It gives us the ability to track what an individual is doing and helps us provide access to only what they need in order to do their job."
"The WildFire reporting and Cortex XDR platform have huge infrastructures in the cloud that secures the network against threats. So, we have the potential on the system, specifically for users, where we take care of this since the user is the most dangerous. We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis, rather than a daily or weekly update like I used to with different AV vendors. These features can detect viruses and malware more quickly, which is super important."
"The most valuable features are web filtering and application filtering."
"There are many valuable features within the solution. This includes security, a user-friendly firewall, antivirus, and global protection."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"In the next release, I would like to see the interface simplified to be more user-friendly."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"The URL objects take significant time in processing compared to other products like Cisco FTD; it would be better if they could improve it."
"The improvement could come from better monitoring of traffic data in and out of the firewall."
"The policy installation length is still too long. It was promised that the time would be severely reduced in newer versions, but it is still too long."
"The policy installation module should be improved."
"Check Point should quickly update and expand its application database to have what Palo Alto has."
"The interface could be better."
"Debugging could be improved when compared to the competition."
"There needs to be more storage space for reporting."
"They could improve their support and pricing and maybe integration. It's a little more expensive that Check Point but the quality is better. Integration with firewall endpoints could be better. Palo Alto does have very good malware or antivirus protection. I think they could improve on that front."
"The analysis of the ITS ID by Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls could be improved."
"I would like them to improve their GUI interface, making it more user-friendly."
"The solution could offer better pricing. We'd like it if it could be a bit more affordable for us."
"I would like them to bring in some features that would encourage traffic shaping or bandwidth routing, like other UTM firewalls, because the solution should be capable of limiting the bandwidth for rules."
"The built-in machine learning features provide some automation, but I think there should be an option for manual review because nothing replaces the human eye."
"Once in a while, they have new features being released that can be buggy. My criticism is more general to all sorts of network or security devices. In general, everybody is releasing less-tested software. Then, it usually ends up that the first few customers who get a new release need to end up troubleshooting it."
"The whole performance takes a long time. It takes a long time to configure."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 161 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Azure Firewall and OPNsense, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.
Hi, I would suggest going for Checkpoint, the suitability depends on your specific security needs, budget constraints, network infrastructure, Integration capabilities, cloud integration, compliance and reporting, user-friendly interface but the support and the specific behavior for some solutions for routing, networking balance or specific connectivity is better known constraints, Checkpoint Multiplatform support (Open Servers Solutions) The advantages in Palo Alto (SSL Decryption, Wildfire SandBox Integration, Scalability)
Hi, I would suggest going for Check Point.
I'm with Check Point now, for more than 2 years. IPS, threat prevention, antibot identification, and antivirus notification are up to the mark. Moreover, it has a friendly user interface where anyone can create policies and work on it.