You can compare this solution to a few other vendors. For example, most of the features available in this product are also available in other products as well. If you're talking about Check Point NG and Palo Alto, Forcepoint is very similar. Palo Alto and Fortinet use a single appliance. However, Check Point and the Forcepoint have a  server-client with the architecture actually. We need to install the GUI from that. And a management server and engine we'll install separately too.

We are a large service provider and we are always looking for new solutions. We had evaluated solutions by Sophos and SonicWall, although we decided that we were going to try Forcepoint.

We would not say No to another try with Forcepoint if, for example, they come back to us with a new version in another year. It would have to have documentation to show that what we want to do is now supported.

Initially, we used Symantec Firewall, which was many years ago. About eight years ago, we transitioned to Stonesoft, the parent company of Forcepoint. We decided to use Forcepoint primarily due to its reputation as a top-notch firewall solution for security.

In addition to Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall, we evaluated the concurrency of Palo Alto's features. We feel that Forcepoint affords better centralized management than its competitors.

We evaluated Palo Alto, their main advantage over Forcepoint is that they have an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile.

We are still evaluating other products such as Palo Alto.

One of our goals is to minimize the number of different vendors that we have. Ideally, we would like to have a firewall and security solution with good performance from a single vendor, with a single management console.

Before choosing this solution we evaluated Check Point.

Forcepoint is easier to use than Fortinet. We are also looking at Cisco ASA. But Fortinet and Cisco don't have all the packages that Forcepoint has. It's not comparing like things.