We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"Reliability is the best feature. We faced some issues when we were setting it up, but the service, portal, and administration are good."
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"The VPN is the most valuable feature."
"All of the features of Fortinet FortiGate are useful and the security protection is good."
"This solution has helped our organization by having strong functions and a reliable firewall."
"The simplicity of the configuration and the stability of the product are most valuable. The VPN concentrator is very useful."
"We can use our devices to check all of the perimeters. It secures email websites."
"The most valuable feature is that we can use the same manager server that we use on our own Check Point firewalls. We integrated CloudGuard on that manager and we can use the same kind of protections that we use on the on-prem firewalls, like the IPS and antivirus policy. We can have the same kind of protection on the Cloud environment that we have on-premise."
"The scalability is very good; again, very user-friendly. I wouldn't even say "user-friendly" because, as long as you deploy it properly, you can kill an EC2 and it will spin up another one right away, within about a minute and a half. And it will be ready for production right away."
"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."
"CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. It's very important because when I have unified security, I have better control of the situation. If there's an attack or something like that, we can react faster. It's easier for everyone in the organization to work with the Infinity platform."
"The tool's deployment is rapid. Its dashboard is also useful. It's easy to deploy both on-premises and in Azure. In an office with VMware running, deployment is a simple process. Similarly, in Azure, deployment is easy and scalable. Adding more CPUs is a straightforward task – just shut it down, modify the security, and restart. This ease of use translates into cost and resource savings, and faster deployment times."
"We find all the features valuable, particularly the firewall, application control, URL filtering, and HTTPS detection."
"The multiple virtual firewalls on one box are extremely useful and the interconnection with virtual switches is simple and easy to understand."
"Workflows across the company ecosystem have can flow smoothly without experiencing any challenges."
"The most valuable features are web control and IPS/IDS."
"It is nice to have a rock solid security platform that we can count on."
"The technical support for the solution is very good."
"The interface with Panorama makes it very easy to use."
"The most effective features of the solution for threat prevention are Layer 7 inspection, SSL decryption, IPS, and the web filtering profile."
"In terms of security breaches, the product aids in categorizing and monitoring traffic, allowing for the identification of potentially malicisous or incorrectly formatted applications."
"It allows us to see all our traffic to properly secure it and only allow what is needed through the firewall."
"It ensures that every interaction, pre and post-loan processing, undergoes a thorough inspection, leveraging VPN features and comprehensive security protocols."
"To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution."
"The reporting in Fortinet FortiGate could improve. Customers are having to purchase additional reporting components. When I have used the Sophos solution it is a complete solution, in Fortinet FortiGate you have to use additional tools to have the features needed."
"Quality control on their firmware versions needs improvement. When they introduce new firmware, there tend to be bugs."
"I would suggest that Fortinet add sandboxing to their solution."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"We were not able to build a full-mesh VPN; however, I am not sure if this was the fault of Fortinet FortiGate."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"Fortinet could improve the windows opener or the virtual IP solutions for opening windows. The virtual IP settings need improvement as firewalls are trending in new development directions."
"The deployment phase takes too much time."
"The product can still grow."
"I think they have pretty much mastered what can be done. There are some nuances like when you fail over from one cluster member to the other, the external IP address takes about two minutes to fail over."
"Its architecture and user interface need improvement. The user experience for this solution also needs to be improved, particularly in implementation, management, and operations."
"The solution’s technical support, DNS security and training could be improved."
"I would like to see more focus on east-west traffic inspection and AWS."
"The solution could improve to have a DLP feature."
"What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America."
"At the beginning of the implementation, we had some difficulties with the scripts, but Palo Alto Networks support together with a local partner finally fixed it."
"The solution needs to improve its visibility. It's not straightforward to use. Understanding the policies, authorizations, and initializing features requires careful review. The product needs to offer proper training."
"The implementation should be simplified."
"There are various reports that come with the box or with the VMware, but you can only run them daily."
"The product's AIOps process needs improvement."
"I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series needs to improve its order process."
"The web interface is very slow, and it needs to be faster."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 117 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 52 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. 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 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Illumio, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Check Point NGFW. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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.
