We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Juniper SRX Series Firewall based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point NGFW is highly recommended for its extensive security features, convenient centralized management, and impressive virtualization capabilities. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is well-known for its user-friendly interface, effortless usage, and excellent support.
Check Point should focus on improving integration, upgrading hardware, reducing costs, and enhancing stability. Juniper needs to work on capacity scalability, pricing strategy, reporting capabilities, user interface, device reliability, and feature enhancements.
Service and Support: The customer service for Check Point NGFW has garnered varying opinions, with some customers finding it helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement. Juniper SRX Series Firewall's customer service is generally deemed satisfactory, with customers appreciating its helpfulness and knowledge. However, there have been occasions where response times were slower and the need for escalation arose.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point NGFW's initial setup can be complex and may need expertise and experience for specific configurations and migrations. Juniper SRX Series Firewall generally has a simple setup process, although it may require CLI experience and coordination with the vendor.
Pricing: Check Point NGFW is known for its expensive setup cost, particularly when compared to other options. Users have found the process of adding new licensing to existing devices to be complex, especially for larger enterprise-level devices. Juniper SRX Series Firewall offers a more reasonable and affordable setup cost. Its setup process is straightforward, and the pricing is considered reasonable.
ROI: Check Point NGFW offers cost savings, simplicity, and effective security enforcement, providing peace of mind once the protection level is understood. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a valuable investment, delivering positive returns and enhanced security features.
Comparison Results: Based on the review answers, the Check Point NGFW is preferred over the Jun SRX Series Firewall. Check Point NGFW offers comprehensive security features such as URL filtering, intrusion prevention systems, identity and access management, and application control capabilities. It also provides centralized management and virtualization features, stability, ease of use, and scalability. Despite its higher pricing, Check Point NGFW is considered more reliable and secure. Additionally, its customer service and support are generally satisfactory.
"Fortinet FortiGate's most valuable features are ease of use, flexibility, and most of the configuration we can be done using the GUI. When we compare Fortinet FortiGate with other solutions the firewall policy are very easy to understand."
"There are lots of features and most of them are deployed for internet security. Users are protected if they accidentally go to some malicious sites."
"It does a lot for you for intrusion protection and as an antivirus. The threat management bundle is worth the money. You don't need another company to monitor your web traffic for you. You can do everything yourself on the firewall. You restrict your own black list for people on the firewall. You don't need to pay some other company for another product to do that for you. The firewall can do that for you. So, it's an easy-to-use product for people to be independent. They don't need to rely on other vendors to do what the firewall can do. They can do everything."
"It can expand easily."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"SSL-VPN is very useful for us and has been very reliable."
"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."
"Its user interface is good, and it is always working fine."
"Check Point definitely has a great architecture, where you can just enable the software blades and deploy a secure service. Overall, it provides ease of deployment and ease of use."
"It filters unwanted traffic."
"Check Point has a lot of features. The ones I love are the antivirus, intrusion prevention, and data loss prevention. Apart from that, there is central management through which we can integrate all the firewalls and support them. It makes it easy to manage all the firewalls."
"The different hardware models focus on a wide spectrum of the market, so any company can choose a model that makes sense for them from the range."
"The most valuable feature is the highly integrated NGFW features such as the IPS or Check Point Identity Awareness, which makes Check Point the best choice on the market."
"I like the dashboard, redundancy, log analysis, threat prevention and ISP, and VPN."
"My customers cite performance and ease of configuration as two of the solution's most valuable features."
"Its most significant strength lies in its superior threat detection engines."
"The Juniper SRX series is easy to use."
"There is a lot of flexibility in how you can commit, check, and back out of a configuration."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper SRX is that it is plug-and-play. Additionally, it has a lot of capabilities in one device."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"On a scale from one to ten, one being the worst and ten being the best I'd give Juniper SRX an overall rating of eight because of its' competitive price."
"We use it as a firewall at our head office and branches."
"The user interface is good."
"If we need to define our user system from an anti-spam perspective, we can constantly update the antivirus."
"The renewal price and the availability could be improved."
"I would like to see improvements in the support from Fortinet. Here in the Philippines, whenever we have problems with a Fortinet product, we mostly ask for support from distributors and resellers and not directly from Fortinet."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"Application management can be improved."
"They should make the rule sets more understandable for the end user. When you're trying to explain to somebody how a computer network is secured, sometimes it's difficult for an end user or customer to understand. If there was a way to make the terminology more accessible to the end user, the set up could be easier. They should translate the technical jargon to an easily relatable and understandable conversation for the end user, the customer, that would be brilliant. Particularly in an environment where the IT structure is audited regularly, there's always pressure from the auditor to up the standards and up the security and you get your USCERT's that come out and there's a warning about this and the customer will want to lock out so much and when you apply it they run into issue where they can't search the internet or print to their remote office. Of course they can't print to your remote office, they just locked it up. They should make the language more understandable for the customer. If there's a product out there that made the jargon understandable to John Q. Public, I would buy that."
"The presentation of the reports need to be more user-friendly."
"This product has room for improvement in technical support for Africa."
"The naming in the inline layers and ordered layers needs improvement. It makes things very complicated. I've seen quite a lot of people saying that. For audit policies, it is okay since it's very simple to see. However, this area is for very large organizations, which have too many policies, and they need to share all these policies. For small to medium-sized businesses, they don't need it. Even if somebody has 500 rules, if they try to use it, it can be very confusing."
"In terms of new features, maybe it would help if we could start to manage all the stuff in the cloud and not in the on-prem servers. The management side could also be faster when you install policies. But other than that, I'm satisfied."
"The training for Check Point Firewall should increase, including the number of Training Centers. For most new people in our organization, we have to provide them training from our end, as they are not trained in Check Point Firewalls. So, we have to do the training, from our point of view, to make our engineers able to use Check Point Firewalls. However, with other firewalls, they are already trained, so we are not require to provide them training. This could be improved by the Check Point Community."
"Check Point could do better to include acceleration technologies like SD-WAN in an integrated or embedded way to provide these new features that Check Point never had and is of great importance in the market."
"The command line is very difficult to use, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of this solution."
"I primarily work on the network side, so my expertise lies in configuring and working with firewalls. I have experience in firewall policies and know how to configure them within CheckPoint, including blocking URLs and specific website categories. However, I acknowledge that there's room for improvement, particularly in areas related to application-level control within the firewall. While I can't pinpoint a specific area for improvement, I am trying open to enhancing my skills and knowledge in various aspects of firewall management."
"In terms of other features, I'd like to see a web filter, 10 point control, application control and a DNA filter in the next release."
"The pricing strategy of the vendor could improve."
"The range of devices should be expanded to include those suitable for a small implementation. Juniper does not have any lower-priced SRX models, useful perhaps for a single ATM or a single bank branch."
"The centralized management platform could be improved."
"The GUI needs to be easier and more helpful for users who don't have security experience."
"To compare with Fortinet, Juniper needs to improve their security features."
"Both the web management and the graphical user interface are inadequate and should be improved."
"It does have its nuances in terms of deployment. There are always areas to make something easier or more intuitive or make the system auto-negotiate more with existing hardware."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 275 reviews while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 18th in Firewalls with 86 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8. 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 Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and Meraki MX, whereas Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Meraki MX. See our Check Point NGFW vs. Juniper SRX Series Firewall report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and 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.
