Compare Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Sangfor NGAF

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco ASA NGFW Logo
68,080 views|51,092 comparisons
Sangfor NGAF Logo
2,701 views|1,866 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Anonymous User
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Sangfor NGAF and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,670 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
Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good.The traffic inspection and the Firepower engine are the most valuable features. It gives you full details, application details, traffic monitoring, and the threats. It gives you all the containers the user is using, especially at the application level. The solution also provides application visibility and control.If we look at the Cisco ASA without Firepower, then one of the most valuable features is the URL filtering.It's easy to integrate ASA with other Cisco security products. When you understand the technology, it's not a big deal. It's very simple.The benefits we see from the ASA are connected to teleworking as well as, of course, having the basic functionality of a firewall in place and the prevention of attacks.On the network side, where you create your rules for allowing traffic — what can come inside and what can go out — that works perfectly, if you know what you want to achieve. It protects you.If you have a solution that is creating a script and you need to deploy many implementations, you can create a script in the device and it will be the same for all. After that, you just have to do the fine tuning.They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home functionality.

More Cisco ASA NGFW Pros »

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.

More Check Point Virtual Systems Pros »

It's a very simple to use product.In terms of the most valuable features, the IPS report is quick and updated. Performance is also valuable.It seems to be a durable, stable product.

More Sangfor NGAF Pros »

Cons
In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline.Security generally requires integration with many devices, and the management side of that process could be enhanced somewhat. It would help if there was a clear view of the integrations and what the easiest way to do them is.One area where the ASA could be improved is that it doesn't have AMP. When you get an ASA with the Firepower model, ASA with FTD, then you have advanced malware protection.If I want to activate IPS features on it, I have to buy another license. If I want Cisco AnyConnect, I have to buy another license. That's where we have challenges.Cisco missed the mark with all the configuration steps. They are a pain and, when doing them, it looks as if we're using a very old technology — yet the technology itself is not old, it's very good. But the front-end configuration is very tough.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.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.

More Cisco ASA NGFW Cons »

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.

More Check Point Virtual Systems Cons »

Occasional issues with breaches which are dealt with expediently.They need to improve their research team and they need to study their data to analyze it and build the product.

More Sangfor NGAF Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions.There is room for improvement in the pricing when compared to the market. Although, when you compare the benefits of support from Cisco, you can adjust the value and it becomes comparable, because you usually need very good support. So you gain value there with this device.When it comes to Cisco, the price of everything is higher. Cisco firewalls are expensive, but we get support from Cisco, and that support is very active.It's a brilliant firewall, and the fact that it comes with a perpetual license really does go far in terms of helping the organization in not having to deal with those costs on an annual basis. That is a pain point when it comes to services like the ones we have on Fortigate. That's where we really give Cisco firewalls the thumbs up.Cisco is expensive, but you do get benefits for the price.In terms of costs, other solutions are more expensive than Cisco. Palo Alto is more expensive than Cisco.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.

More Cisco ASA NGFW Pricing and Cost Advice »

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.

More Check Point Virtual Systems Pricing and Cost Advice »

It costs about 8 to 10 thousand dollars per year for 500 users, standard licensing fees included.

More Sangfor NGAF Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
431,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Popular Comparisons
Compared 36% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Compared 31% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsCheck Point VSXSangfor NGAF Firewall Platform
Learn
Cisco
Check Point
Sangfor
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

Sangfor NGAF is capable of detecting in real-time threats at every step and provide a rapid response on how to deal with them. In order to meet the challenges of escalating attacks, it's not enough to provide the detection of static elements. We need a total security collaboration between each module to continuously detect unknown & new threats to quickly issue policy based on detection results to refine the scope of the threats.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Check Point Virtual Systems
Learn more about Sangfor NGAF
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.Sony EMCS (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysian Road Transport Department, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Punjab Medical College (Pakistan)
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm20%
Manufacturing Company10%
Comms Service Provider9%
University8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company29%
Comms Service Provider21%
Media Company7%
Government5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm29%
Government29%
Healthcare Company14%
Non Profit14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company40%
Comms Service Provider20%
Media Company6%
Government4%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Sangfor NGAF and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Check Point Virtual Systems is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 9 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 27th in Firewalls with 3 reviews. Check Point Virtual Systems is rated 8.2, while Sangfor NGAF 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "We don't lose data anymore because it protects us from viruses". Check Point Virtual Systems is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Firepower NGFW, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, pfSense and Sophos XG, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos UTM, Sophos XG, Fortinet FortiOS and pfSense. See our Check Point Virtual Systems vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.