We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and Juniper SRX Series Firewall based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is commended for its VPN Blade, IPS Blade, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade, while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is highly regarded for its simplicity, user-friendly interface, and robust assistance.
Check Point could enhance its support system, cluster creation on AWS, data protection visibility, DLP feature, user interface, integration, cost reduction, documentation, and flexibility in deployment. Juniper SRX Series Firewall needs enhancements in capacity, pricing strategy, reporting and alerts, user interface, reliability, warranty, administration, documentation, and feature range.
Service and Support: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has received varying feedback regarding its customer service, with some customers appreciating the technical support provided, while others have encountered delays in response time. Juniper SRX Series Firewall generally garners positive reviews for its customer service, which is deemed helpful and knowledgeable. However, there have been occasional instances of slower response times reported.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's initial setup is considered straightforward, although it may require technical expertise. The deployment time can range from one day to a few days. Juniper SRX Series Firewall setup is generally straightforward and can be completed within a day for small-scale branch offices. However, there is a learning curve involved and users may need CLI experience.
Pricing: The cost of setting up Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is seen as high, whereas Juniper is viewed as reasonably priced and affordable. Users note that Check Point's pricing may differ based on the size of the organization and the country, while Juniper's pricing is considered average.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security offers significant cost savings and centralized management, resulting in a strong return on investment. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is highly dependable and has excellent uptime. It also provides enhanced security features, contributing to a positive ROI for its users.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the preferred product over Juniper SRX Series Firewall. It is praised for its user-friendly setup and valuable features such as VPN Blade, IPS Blade, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade. Users appreciate its advanced threat prevention, centralized management, scalability, and focus on cloud security.
"The solution is extremely reliable."
"The web filtering feature and the intrusion protection system are the most valuable. It is a resilient appliance. I never had an issue with it in terms of any security breaches."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"The most valuable features are the VPN Blade, IPS Blade, the URL filtering, and the Applications Control Blade."
"It is scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it's easy to implement and manage."
"The visibility, the one-pane-of-glass which allows me to see all of my edge protection through one window and one log, is great. Monitoring everything through that one pane of glass is extremely valuable."
"The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great."
"The query feature is going to be a game-changer for us as we move forward."
"Auto-scaling and zero touch are valuable features."
"The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support."
"Some retail customers find the scale-up and scale-down features valuable, particularly with scale sets. This is useful for handling increased loads on devices and utilizing firewalls, similar to on-premises setups with active standby configurations."
"The features that I have found valuable are the ones for the main purpose we are using Juniper - its firewall to protect our network for our internet access."
"We did not have problems with scaling, as we have less than 500 users in our organization."
"It integrates well with Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"It is a complete security bundle. The cloud-based Sky Advanced Threat Prevention feature is very valuable. I am 100% satisfied with the performance of the Juniper firewall. It has a very good throughput. It works very fine. We use our firewall as a site-to-site VPN or Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN). In both cases, it has a very good and optimum performance. Their service support is very good in India. I get really good support from the Juniper team."
"CLI: Junos CLI is very easy to use, and it is also very easy to find back items in the configuration and to change them."
"The high availability of the application is good."
"The most valuable feature is the virtualization because it can be used for customers who are using the mobile data network to request a private connection to a remote site."
"Juniper SRX is a very powerful firewall and sometimes can be used as a router."
"A sandbox would be good in order to be able to inspect the emails containing spam and be able to validate the emails that contain malware, prior to delivering to the customer."
"The reports are very basic."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"The solution lacks multi-language support."
"The support system could be improved."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"Backup can be improved."
"I'm not sure if it's something that they already have or are developing something, however, we need some dedicated features for container security."
"At the cost level, the solution is somewhat expensive."
"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."
"I hope that Check Point continues to improve its technical documentation regarding the Check Point CloudGuard IaaS gateway and management system."
"This application can be more integrated with web application firewalls. Better integrations would provide more granularity, which would be helpful for focusing on the application itself and preventing attacks. It would be good to include the cross-domain search. If you have multiple firewalls that are managed on the same platform and you want to check who is using some particular objects or where a specific ID is being used, it should provide an option for this kind of search instead of having to check one by one on each firewall."
"It needs to cover additional kinds of infrastructure, like containers and serverless options. It's somewhat limited in that area."
"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."
"At CPX, we heard that we can see all the things on the same platform. That is what we have been asking for, and hopefully, we are going to start seeing it this year."
"We utilize logging systems, and geolocation is crucial for us as some applications must only be accessible from our country. However, there have been occasional issues with this feature."
"The GUI needs improvement."
"It's a good stable firewall, but it's nowhere near what it needs to be for a next-generation type firewall."
"The GUI needs to be easier and more helpful for users who don't have security experience."
"In some cases, customers encounter issues related to network interfaces, while others prioritize security concerns."
"Juniper SRX Series Firewall has to improve its web content site, like web filtration."
"Both the web management and the graphical user interface are inadequate and should be improved."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"There is room for improvement in scalability and performance. It's scalable and reliable, but when using next-generation firewall features, the performance decreases significantly for Juniper SRX."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 119 reviews while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 19th in Firewalls with 86 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Check Point NGFW. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Juniper SRX Series Firewall report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors, best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors, and 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.
