Compare Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
464,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature.""I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy, straightforward on your left side pane you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward.""We have multiple secure internal networks linked with our plants. We are from a oil company, so we have multiple plant areas which need to have restricted network access. Therefore, we are using it for restricting access to the plant area.""The initial setup was completely straightforward.""I would say the Firepower module is most valuable. I'm trying more to transition to this kind firewall. I had to study a little on Palo Alto Networks equipment. There is a lot I have to learn about the difference.""The feature that I found most valuable is the overall stability of the product.""The stability of Cisco ASA is excellent compared to other products on the market. Because of our customer experience as an integrator company, our clients never report any performance problems. We have a good performance reputation with Cisco ASA.""Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization."

More Cisco ASA Firewall Pros »

"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.""The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can start off with a simple firewall and expand it to UTM.""The program is very stable.""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 IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features.""A unique architecture makes this product stand out from other solutions.""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.""The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support."

More Check Point Virtual Systems Pros »

"We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors.""It is very scalable.""The most valuable feature is the ability to deeply analyze the connection or connection type.""One of the things I really like about it is that we have the same features and functions available on the entry-level device (PA-220), as do large corporations with much more costly appliances.""One of the best firewalls on the market.""Good functionality and features.""The basic configuration will only take 15 minutes to set up""The solution is very stable."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pros »

Cons
"At times the product is sluggish and slow""If I need to download AnyConnect in a rush, it will prompt me for my Cisco login account. Nobody wants to download a client to a firewall that they don't own.""Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems.""We have to rely on Cisco ASDM to access the firewall interface. This needs improvement. Because we have a web-based interface, and it is a lot more user-friendly.""The installation and integration of Cisco ASA with FirePOWER can be improved. The management with Fortigate is easier than Cisco ASA on FirePOWER. The management side of Cisco ASA can be improved so it can be more easily configured and used.""One of my main concerns, an area that could use improvement is in adjusting the need to buy a license to enable features.""Usually, the customers are satisfied, but I am going to recommend that all clients upgrade to FirePOWER management. I want Cisco to improve the feature called anti-spam. We use a Cisco only email solution, that's why we need the anti-spam on email facility.""There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products."

More Cisco ASA Firewall Cons »

"The initial setup is difficult. It took me three tries to get it right. The setup took two or three hours.""The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use.""It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees.""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.""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.""It can be difficult to install properly without prior training""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.""Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDP/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with new hardware."

More Check Point Virtual Systems Cons »

"I would like integration with Evident.io and RedLock.""The data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities need to be beefed up.""Overall it is good. It is reliable and easy to understand. However, the monitoring feature could be improved.""The initial configuration is complicated to set up.""The user interface is a bit clumsy and not very user-friendly.""Could also use better customer support.""Customers don't want to buy extra things for extra capabilities""Generating reports is not so easy."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions.""The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.""We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.""Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs.""I bought a license for three years and it was really affordable.""With AnyConnect, it depends on your license. It depends on the number of concurrent users you want to connect.""This solution might be expensive, but it is economical in the long run.""Some of our customers would be more likely to standardize on Cisco equipment if the cost was lower because a lot of people install cheap equipment."

More Cisco ASA Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice »

"On average, it is normally on the lower end, being less expensive than Palo Alto or Cisco.""It is more expensive than other solutions and would be more competetive in the market if it came down in price.""We pay approximately ‎€150,000 ($166,000 USD) per year.""It is not expensive, but it is a little bit above the middle range. There are other solutions that are a little more expensive than this, but they also have some interesting features.""The price could be better."

More Check Point Virtual Systems Pricing and Cost Advice »

"Annually, the licensing costs are too much.""Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis, or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment, or other similar add-on, you have to pay accordingly for the additional service.""It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls.""Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have.""The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that.""The price of this product should be reduced.""The pricing is competitive in the market.""This is an expensive product, which is why some of our customers don't adopt it."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
464,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer:  When you compare these firewalls you can identify them with different features, advantages, practices and… more »
Top Answer: They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home… more »
Top Answer: In terms of costs, other solutions are more expensive than Cisco. Palo Alto is more expensive than Cisco.
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Top Answer: Pricewise Cisco. But PA has better rating.
Top Answer: Ease of Use - GUI familiarities  and adoption level can differ from user to user. - Personally I found CISCO  ASA… more »
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAv
Check Point VSX
Palo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
Learn More
Overview

Cisco ASA firewalls deliver enterprise-class firewall functionality with highly scalable and flexible VPN capabilities to meet diverse needs, from small/branch offices to high performance data centers and service providers. Available in a wide range of models, Cisco ASA can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance. Flexible VPN capabilities include support for remote access, site-to-site, and clientless VPN. Also, select appliances support clustering for increased performance, VPN load balancing to optimize available resources, advanced high availability configurations, and more.

Cisco ASAv is the virtualized version of the Cisco ASA firewall. Widely deployed in leading private and public clouds, Cisco ASAv is ideal for remote worker and multi-tenant environments. The solution scales up/down to meet performance requirements and high availability provides resilience. Also, Cisco ASAv can deliver micro-segmentation to protect east-west network traffic.

Cisco firewalls provide consistent security policies, enforcement, and protection across all your environments. Unified management for Cisco ASA and FTD/NGFW physical and virtual firewalls is delivered by Cisco Defense Orchestrator (CDO), with cloud logging also available. And with Cisco SecureX included with every Cisco firewall, you gain a cloud-native platform experience that enables greater simplicity, visibility, and efficiency.

Learn more about Cisco’s firewall solutions, including virtual appliances for public and private cloud.

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

Palo Alto Networks' next-generation firewalls secure your business with a prevention-focused architecture and integrated innovations that are easy to deploy and use. Now, you can accelerate growth and eliminate risks at the same time.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA Firewall
Learn more about Check Point Virtual Systems
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
Sample Customers
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.
SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm17%
Comms Service Provider14%
Manufacturing Company10%
Computer Software Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider35%
Computer Software Company22%
Government4%
Media Company4%
REVIEWERS
Government22%
Financial Services Firm22%
Non Profit11%
Wholesaler/Distributor11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider34%
Computer Software Company27%
Media Company4%
Energy/Utilities Company4%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider23%
Computer Software Company23%
Financial Services Firm14%
Manufacturing Company9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider27%
Computer Software Company24%
Energy/Utilities Company5%
Media Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise39%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business27%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise52%
REVIEWERS
Small Business53%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise32%
REVIEWERS
Small Business41%
Midsize Enterprise32%
Large Enterprise27%
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
464,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Check Point Virtual Systems is ranked 14th in Firewalls with 12 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 50 reviews. Check Point Virtual Systems is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point Virtual Systems writes "Reliable solution with a unique architecture that creates flexibility in the deployment ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry". Check Point Virtual Systems is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, pfSense and Sophos XG, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, Azure Firewall, pfSense and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series. See our Check Point Virtual Systems 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.