Compare Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series

Check Point Virtual Systems is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 11 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 12 reviews. Check Point Virtual Systems is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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 VM-Series writes "A reliable tool with excellent support". Check Point Virtual Systems is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Cisco ASA NGFW, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Azure Firewall and CyberArk PAS. See our Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Anonymous User
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
384,324 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
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.Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good.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.I like the Cisco ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager), which is the configuration interface for the Cisco firewall.The technical team is always available when we have problems.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

Embedding it into my application development lifecycle prevents data loss and business disruption, allowing the adoption to operate at the speed of my AWS Cloud.It has a good performance which helps you with the stability of your virtual environment.In AWS, Palo Alto provides us a better view than flow logs for network traffic.App-ID and User-ID have repeatedly shown value in securing business critical systems.It provides complete security posture from end-to-end. This has given us better visibility into what our security aspects are.You already can scale it if you put it in Auto Scaling groups. If you put it in a load balancer, it should already be able to scale.It allows us to see all our traffic to properly secure it and only allow what is needed through the firewall.It offers a single pane of glass for all the different types of installations.

Read more »

Cons
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.In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline.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.The Sandbox and the Web Censoring in this solution need to be improved.It will be nice if they had what you traditionally would use a web application scanner for. If the solution could take a deeper look into HTTP and HTTPS traffic, that would be nice.

Read more »

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 trainingSometimes, 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.

Read more »

It can definitely improve on the performance.It has to be more scalable for the deployment of VMs on the cloud.I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases.We have ran into issues with Palo Alto’s limitations for resolving large IP lists from DNS lookups, as well as the antivirus interfering with App-ID.The product could provide protection above Layer 3, which gets into the application layer and provides better visibility into those aspects of application security.On the cloud side, they need to come up with more HA solutions to support the multi-region.AWS doesn't integrate well with third-party firewalls.I would like a way to do everything programmatically, or be able to copy the configs from different prices at different levels.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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.Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions.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.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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

The pricing and licensing of this product on AWS should be from $1.28/hr or $4,500.00/yr. Then, it would be a good price for the performance that it delivers.We used BYOL, because of the cost to own.The pricing and licensing of this product on AWS for a three-year commitment is a great deal, if you can plan that far ahead.Because the solution was getting deployed on AWS, it was the best place to go and it was available there.One of the factors for selecting Palo Alto was they had flexible pricing. They had a pay-as-you-go model. Comparable to other products, such as Check Point, the price point was definitely a plus.The pricing was expensive but it was comparable to the competition.AWS is available as a AMI that you can purchase from the AWS Marketplace. Therefore, you need to purchase the licensing, since it is per AMI. Then, you deploy it on a regular EC2. Then, for on-premise, you can use both Palo Alto's software and hardware.The price is not bad. They have a yearly renewal fee, and the pricing is exactly where we expect it to be.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
384,324 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 38% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsCheck Point VSX
Learn
Cisco
Check Point
Palo Alto Networks
Overview

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

The VM-Series is a virtualized form factor of our next-generation firewall that can be deployed in a range of private and public cloud computing environments based on technologies from VMware, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Citrix and KVM.

The VM-Series natively analyzes all traffic in a single pass to determine the application identity, the content within, and the user identity. These core elements of your business can then be used as integral components of your security policy, enabling you to improve your security efficacy through a positive control model and reduce your incident response time though complete visibility into applications across all ports.

In both private and public cloud environments, the VM-Series can be deployed as a perimeter gateway, an IPsec VPN termination point, and a segmentation gateway, protecting your workloads with application enablement and threat prevention policies.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Check Point Virtual Systems
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks VM-Series
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.Warren Rogers Associates
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm20%
Manufacturing Company11%
Comms Service Provider9%
University7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company29%
Comms Service Provider16%
Media Company8%
Retailer5%
REVIEWERS
Government29%
Financial Services Firm29%
Healthcare Company14%
Wholesaler/Distributor14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company43%
Comms Service Provider14%
Media Company8%
Financial Services Firm4%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company29%
Writing And Editing Position11%
Government8%
University7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise40%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business34%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise45%
REVIEWERS
Small Business53%
Midsize Enterprise7%
Large Enterprise40%
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise29%
Large Enterprise36%
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
384,324 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email