Compare Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto NG Firewalls

Check Point Virtual Systems is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 11 reviews while Palo Alto NG Firewalls is ranked 12th in Firewalls with 18 reviews. Check Point Virtual Systems is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto NG Firewalls is rated 8.4. 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 NG Firewalls writes "Great at threat prevention and has good policy-based routing features". Check Point Virtual Systems is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Cisco ASA NGFW, whereas Palo Alto NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Sophos XG. See our Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto NG Firewalls report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
SherifNour
Anonymous User
Jonny Su
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
383,444 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 »

This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server.The initial setup was very easy.The most valuable features are the threat prevention and policy-based routing features.We have found the application control to be the most valuable feature. Also, Layer 7, because all other products are working up to the maximum capacity. But Palo Alto is benefiting us, especially in application control management. We are able to differentiate between Oracle traffic and SQL traffic.The solution is scalableI found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution.Comments have some delay, but overall, it's a good product.With our High availability pair, we have had no downtime for several years, since it was first put it in production.

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 »

I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself.The advanced manual protection needs to be improved a little bit because they used to make a cloud manual analysis for the cloud.I think they need to have a proper hardware version for a smaller enterprise. We had to go to a very high-end version which is very expensive. If we chose the lower-end version, it would not meet our goals. A middle-end is missing in its portfolio.The solution needs some management tool enhancements. It could also use more reporting tools.The support could be improved.The scalability compared to other products is not good. You need to change the box whenever you want your number of connection sessions to increase.We need better affiliations for profiling the user.When you delete and add a new rule, because of the one hundred rule limit, if the new rule has an ID that is greater than one hundred, even though you have fewer than that, it will not work.

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 licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that.Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have.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.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.Annually, the licensing costs are too much.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
383,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 38% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsCheck Point VSXPalo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
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

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 NGFW
Learn more about Check Point Virtual Systems
Learn more about Palo Alto 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 Firm20%
Manufacturing Company11%
Comms Service Provider9%
University7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company29%
Comms Service Provider16%
Media Company8%
Retailer5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm29%
Government29%
Wholesaler/Distributor14%
Non Profit14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company43%
Comms Service Provider14%
Media Company8%
Financial Services Firm4%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Comms Service Provider10%
Financial Services Firm10%
Construction Company9%
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 Business50%
Midsize Enterprise29%
Large Enterprise21%
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Palo Alto NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
383,444 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