We performed a comparison between Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Fortinet FortiGate's reliability is valuable."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"The technical support is great."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"The threat prevention is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"LinkGreat firewall capabilities"
"We are using the FortiGate 100D series. VPN, firewall, anti-malware, OTM, and intrusion prevention are useful features."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature for us was to implement negligent functionality, to direct functionality to viewer control and application control so we could disconnect, and at the same time, we installed checkpoints. We disconnected our proxy."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"The filtering was very good."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"The technical support is good."
"It is the best device in comparison to other network products in the marketplace."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"It catches modified signatures of known viruses."
"The solution is completely integrated with all the other Palo Alto products. I think that it is the best part for endpoint protection. The firewall features include URL and DNS filtering, threat protection, and antivirus."
"It helps us when segmenting and securing the network and all sort of technologies, all sort of next generation needs. It's next generation phases of firewall like anti-virus, sandboxing, wifi, and VPN."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"Monitoring and reporting could be better."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"We had a minor problem where there was a major system upgrade on the hardware platfrom and the Mac client was not available as soon as it might have been. The PC client was available immediately, but we had to wait a month or so, before there was a mac client. I was slightly irritated that it was not ready on time, but it was eventually resolved."
"We'd like more management across other integrations."
"I have to say that the initial setup was complex. The deployment took a few days to get set up. Initially, we were using an IPVanish. We switched to this tool since we thought it would be easier. But it turns out it wasn't easier to set up and run."
"Fortinet FortiGate should improve the VPN tokens."
"The process of configuring firewall rules appears excessively complex."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"The interface needs improvement."
"What has been the issue of firewalls is they ask me for policies and content filtering application control and all these features that are now part of Harmony."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"As we don't have a representative of Check Point in Mozambique, this makes it very difficult when we have some issues to resolve."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"The solution could be improved if there was a better way to report. The reporting functionality is not really good. Even though it's not the major function. Maybe adding a way to make a custom report."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"When comparing this solution to others it is not as good overall."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"The product fails to offer protection when dealing with high-severity vulnerabilities, making it an area of concern where improvements are required."
"High availability features are lacking."
"The cyber security visibility and forensics features to receive more information about incidents could improve in Palo Alto Networks WildFire."
"Any enhancements should likely be focused on the firewall appliance to further strengthen overall security capabilities, such as refining app and user identity features."
"The size of Palo Alto's cloud is big but it could be easier to use from a product management perspective."
Earn 20 points
Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] writes "Great firewalls, VPN, and Intrusion prevention capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Check Point SandBlast Network.
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.
Are you limiting the results are a specific reason?
The larger question here is what do they need? There is no one best, each one has a good pro and con list to compare. (do they need web filtering, geo ip blocking, layer 7 filtering, detail qos control, redundant link fail over, load balancing, client access, reports, automated reports, etc) There are a lot of open questions that can help anyone tailor what would be best to use.
My personal experience with those mentioned is to go with Palo Alto. It has a good rock solid and stable OS and can be configured to most anything your client would need.
Fortinet's: The OS has many issues with memory even when you over spec the unit. You will find yourself having to restart it pretty often. It does have a decent configuration gui. (My personal opinion unless it's a OS/Firmware upgrade the unit should never need rebooted).
Check Point: At least the units I have had the wonderful time working with, have been very "finicky", granted the last one I seen was about two years ago now, which imo is a good thing. I was not impressed.
Firewalls I did not see mentioned Cisco ASA/Firepower, Cisco Meraki, SonicWall, PFSense, Adtran.
I do like the Cisco Units, though not for the faint of heart. Even the new ones you will find yourself in the shell often. That said there is a reason that most Datacenters use them, they have been around a long time and know how to build a good product.
Meraki: These have surprised me. They are as good as the Palo Alto FWs and the recent (time is relative) acquisition of OpenDNS/Umbrella into their security stack is a good blend. Easy to configure, A good option if the client will be in the FW making changes. When Paired with other Meraki units the Single Pane of Glass configuration is a plus. The Reporting is a nice feature with the ability to alert on. The Layer 7 Filtering and QOS is super well thought out. Really, really easy to configure. I can walk most anyone through a setup.
SonicWall: Just mentioning their name gives me headaches. Even after Dell purchased them the product isn't any better again just my opinion. They are easy to setup, and that is all I will give them.
PFSense: I love OpenSource products, PFSense has a good plugin list and is easy to make your own. It is not for everyone. The recent last few firmware/OS upgrades introduced a better gui interface. Rock Solid (as long as you have good hardware.) They just work. You will however need to know the product well. Some configuration places can be confusing. Such as setting up Traffic Shaping is not as simple as in the others, "in a click of a button".
Adtran: Adtran does not get mentioned enough. These units are good and do exactly what they are told. Never have to be rebooted unless you upgrading the firmware/os on the units. They are fast and as the phrase goes "they just work". The GUI is still a little dated when compared to others in the market, Once you get use to it though your golden. The Shell is near identical to the Cisco, so for Cisco guys it's an easy go between. They started out as a Voice vendor product, as you know voice is never allowed to go down and that is how their switches, routers, etc are.
So to recap: It depends on what you want to do.
In your original list, The Palo Alto is the winner.
If you want to Expand it to the larger list I would say the Meraki if you want a good gui experience and support.
If you just want it to work with a ton of no extra cost add-ons the PFSense is the next option if you're willing to put the effort into learning it inside and out, which only the hardcore guys seem to do.
I have worked on PA, CP, & Fortinet. I found Fortinet to be the most capable and best common interface for overall usage. As stated above, I found PA's to be overpriced for what they give you. Based on my monitoring this sector, CP & PA are trying ot catch up to Fortinet's and Cisco's ecosystem approaches. Cisco's Ecosystem, since I brought it up, still requires a user to know too many different interfaces and leads to configuration issues.
My recommendation is Fortinet.
I have experience is all flavors mentioned here.
If you are thinking about the cost of the product , then go with Fortinet. Fortinet products are cheep when compare to PA or Checkpoint. Whereas the performance of the box is not mentioned on the datasheet. You have to rethink the value based real world traffic.
For stable network m opinion is PA or checkpoint. Both devices have certain their own features which may not be replace by other device.
I would you to consult with the SE who can understand your requirement and unique features required to your organization.
my opinión : i think all vendors in security are great but i prefer FORTINET
My opinion about firewalls --> FORTI (FortiGate) is the best out of those 3:Fortinet, Palo Alto, Check Point.
Why? 1. Price (TCO), 2. Wide and complex functionality, 3. More userfriendly interface than ChPoint. Check Point is too expensive (my private opinion) compared with its functionality (the brand costs).
I haven’t got any experience with Palo Alto.
Having worked for Nokia and Check Point for eight years as a Senior S.E., and SonicWALL, and also being very familiar with Palo, Fortinet, Cisco & Sophos, I'd say it all comes to the customer's requirements.
When I was Director of Engineering at Intel for their FW/VPN, I asked marketing for the numbers of how much of our customer base was using the FW component of our product which was called and marketed a VPN. An astounding 48 per cent used the FW. I immediately had our gateway rebranded "Intel FW/VPN".
According to IDC we were number 2 of market share at 14% behind Bottle at 20%.
Unfortunately Intel bought our product as a "BB" (buy and bury). They took our code and put it on an ASIC chip and stamped it onto their NICks (network interface cards).
Being the director of engineering I was responsible for a good portion of that.
I can support on Fortinet Firewalls and its integration.
Best is subjective and I think there are many factors that could influence a decision.
Fortinet are generally less expensive but I have found their management and product splintering to be cumbersome, support is hit and miss and depends on the partner you work with. That said if you are on a budget it could be a good choice.
Palo have a good management platform, excellent firewalls and with the release of their new firewalls (820/50) have some cost effective solutions at the lower end, support is very good.
Checkpoint have a very good management platform, average firewalls with sometimes over complex configuration and from experience I would have to say awful support.
As always I would try to figure out what requirements and capabilities you are looking for, where the strengths and weaknesses of your security team lie and work from there. The solution should be built to fit your business requirements and budget.