Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks K2-Series and other solutions. Updated: May 2020.
420,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home functionality.
The most valuable feature is that the encryption is solid.
Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good.
For us, the most valuable features are the IPX and the Sourcefire Defense Center module. That gives us visibility into the traffic coming in and going out, and gives us the heads-up if there is a potential outbreak or potential malicious user who is trying to access the site. It also helps us see traffic generated by an end device trying to reach out to the world.
The information coming from Talos does a good job... I like the fact that Cisco is working with them and getting the information from them and updating the firewall.
The firepower sensors have been great; they do a good job of dropping unwanted traffic.
The most important point is the detection engine which is now part of the next-generation firewalls and which is supported by Cisco Talos.
The most valuable feature of this solution is AMP (Advanced Malware Protection), as this is really needed to protect against cyber threats.
The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support.
As per the solution's blade design, there are many options. For example, you have to buy a UTM blade and an advanced malware blade, etc. If the blade license is there, we can configure from the firewall GUI.
A unique architecture makes this product stand out from other solutions.
The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features.
We find Check Point valuable because they are 100% focused on security. It totally closes the potential vulnerability channel. We can check our mail and our attachments and we can scan everything easily. We get an immediate report about the situation of the attachments. We can discover if the target's security attack was started from phishing, etc. We also enjoy using the additional features that protect our internal customer from targeted attacks.
The program is very stable.
The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can start off with a simple firewall and expand it to UTM.
It's a high-performance device. The network performance is also really good. We check how much time it takes for the servers. Our network performance has increased since using this solution.
Palo Alto has a unique solution for DNS security, which is very good.
Overall, this is a very simple and very effective firewall, and I am satisfied with it.
The most valuable features are the virtualization of the firewall and the antivirus.
This is a very reliable firewall and we have never had problems with it.
Palo Alto has an approach that makes the configuration easier not only for the customers but also for the IT help for the customers.
Simple integrations with the domain controllers and other inventories
The most valuable feature is availability.
The IPS system is the best in the field.
Cisco provides us with application visibility and control, although it's not a complete solution compared to other vendors. Cisco needs to work on the application behavior side of things, in particular when it comes to the behavior of SSL traffic.
It is expensive.
In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline.
We were also not too thrilled when Cisco announced that in the upcoming new-gen ASA, iOS was not going to be supported, or if you install them, they will not be able to be managed through the Sourcefire. However, it seems like Cisco is moving away from the ASA iOS to the Sourcefire FireSIGHT firmware for the ASA. We haven't had a chance to test it out.
Our latest experience with a code upgrade included a number of bugs and issues that we ran into. So more testing with their code, before it hits us, would help.
The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed.
Most users do not have awareness of this product's functionality and features. Cisco should do something to make them aware of them. That would be quite excellent and useful to organizations that are still using legacy data-center-security products.
I have found that Cisco reporting capabilities are not as rich as other products, so the reporting could be improved.
Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDP/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with new hardware.
If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Forcepoint in the Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it easily, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration.
It can be difficult to install properly without prior training
Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself.
The stability of the solution could be improved, but this is the problem of all the solutions in the market. This isn't just a problem specific to Check Point.
It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees.
The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use.
The initial setup is difficult. It took me three tries to get it right. The setup took two or three hours.
The URL Filtering module needs to have more categories added to it.
I would like to see the threat intelligence capability integrated with other vendors such as Cisco and Forcepoint.
The ease of management and configuration should be improved.
The technical support, and how they provide it to the client, needs to be improved.
They should implement the features that the other firewalls have.
Palo Alto doesn't have extended visibility to the end point in their firewalls.
There are a lot of bugs in this solution.
Higher levels of support are excellent but new users may need additional options.
Pricing and Cost Advice
In terms of costs, other solutions are more expensive than Cisco. Palo Alto is more expensive than Cisco.
Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions.
Pricing varies on the model and the features we are using. It could be anywhere from $600 to $1000 to up to $7,000 per year, depending on what model and what feature sets are available to us.
We used Check Point and the two are comparable. Cost was really what put us onto the ASAs... the price tag for Check Point was exorbitantly more than what it is for the ASA solution.
We are in the process of renewing our three-year license, which costs approximately $24,000 USD for the thirty-six months.
The pricing for Cisco products is higher than others, but Cisco is a very good, strong, and stable technology.
The program is very expensive.
The cost of this solution is high.
We pay approximately €150,000 ($166,000 USD) per year.
It is more expensive than other solutions and would be more competetive in the market if it came down in price.
On average, it is normally on the lower end, being less expensive than Palo Alto or Cisco.
Pricing is a sensitive issue because the cost is high in this market.
This is an expensive solution, although you will get value for the price.
This solution is expensive compared to other, similar products.
The price of this solution is too high.
Products by the leader in the field are justifiably a bit more expensive compared to other vendors.
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Compared 45% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
|Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls||Check Point VSX|
|Cisco||Check Point||Palo Alto Networks|
Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) is Cisco's end-to-end software solution and core operating system that powers the Cisco ASA product series. This software solution provides enterprise-level firewall capabilities for all types of ASA products, including blades, standalone appliances and virtual devices. Adaptive Security Appliance provides protection to organizations of all sizes, and allows end-users to access information securely anywhere, at any time, and through any device.
Adaptive Security Appliance is also fully compatible with other key security technologies, and so provides organizations with an all-encompassing security solution.
Block more threats and quickly mitigate those that do breach your defenses with the industry’s first threat-focused NGFW.
Check Point Virtual Systems taps the power of virtualization to consolidate and simplify security for private clouds while delivering a lower total cost of ownership. It enables customized security against evolving network threats with the extensible Software Blade Architecture. Virtual Systems is supported on Check Point Appliances, including the 61000 Security System as well as open servers.
Learn more about Virtual systems
Designed to handle growing throughput needs due to increasing amounts of application-, user-, and device-generated data, the K2-Series offers amazing performance and threat prevention capabilities to stop advanced cyberattacks and secure mobile network infrastructure, subscribers, and services.
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Check Point Virtual Systems
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks K2-Series
|There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.||Bentley Systems, Almaviva TSF S.p.A, Yankuang Group, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.||State of North Dakota, SEGA, Alameda County Office of Education, Temple University, VERGE, CAME|
Financial Services Firm20%
Comms Service Provider9%
Software R&D Company28%
Comms Service Provider20%
Financial Services Firm29%
Software R&D Company38%
Comms Service Provider20%
No Data Available
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.