We are using it for in and out of our cloud from on-premises. Security from our SD-WAN and express route connectivity is our main use case.

We also have vendor integrations. SAP RISE was the big one that we recently had where we were using dedicated CloudGuard network gateways for straight vendor implementations.

The ease of deployment has been a benefit. Having Check Point on-premises definitely helped with moving to the cloud. It feels very similar after you migrate. It was not as cumbersome as on-premises, and it was a little less scary for others. It enabled others within our company to adopt.

We have unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. We are using just gateways to the cloud, and we have the same management server and the same console as on-prem gateways. It definitely allows you to have unified policies across the board. This seamless integration is a huge plus. Smart-1 Cloud is the next portion to go up to, so we can remove the complexity of management, such as login and whatnot, from our responsibilities.

By using CloudGuard Network Security, we have a good foundation. The history of Check Point has a reliability that I trust. Most of the improvements we do are more internal. There are actions that we, as customers, need to do. It helps to have vendors like Check Point who will go out of their way to help you make their product seamless. It is only as good as how you use it. That has been a big positive, and we have had a good accounts team that has been able to bring proper resources to us, and we encourage those additional resources they provide to us to help us be successful.

For identifying security threats, our company uses a portfolio of different kinds of vector spots and inspection spots. Some of that is handled by another team, and I do not have direct insight into that. However, it has definitely added some automatic reaction with our on-premise setup, which has helped us integrate cross-platform. That portion has been great because no one wants to be too vendor-dependent. You want to be vendor-agnostic. The fact that we can utilize it across multiple vendors has been a positive for us.

We are using gateways, and I appreciate the high-availability gateways they have. They stand out more than the competitors.

The Check Point architecture team adapting fluently to the architecture that each cloud has is valuable. They are adaptive to customer solutions, which is a big advantage.

Some more built-in marketplace templates would be nice. It would be nice to see more vendor assistance in deployments and backup of recoveries versus having customers rely upon that themselves. That would make it a lot more seamless and aligned with the standard on-premise model that is there. Check Point can extend the same posture that they have to CloudGuard and make that transition very seamless.

Check Point does not have as big a footprint in engineering teams as Cisco or Palo Alto has, especially in the US market. Therefore, finding someone who understands Check Point is a lot harder. If Check Point can make it easier for seamless transitions, it will build the confidence of engineers and help with the adoption of a new vendor for those engineers. Anything they can do to help with that is a competitive advantage, and it works for any company looking into it.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for about three years.

It is very stable, but in any virtualized environment, you are still dependent on your cloud provider. If Amazon, Microsoft, Google, or any other cloud provider reboots the gateway because they are doing some maintenance and did not tell you about it, it is not Check Point's fault. It is something where you have to correlate whether you had an outage or lost a node. You still have to report that. It still looks like that your Check Point firewall went down, so guilty until proven innocent type of deal comes into play. That has been a little bit more challenging than when it is your hardware on-premises. Outside of a power issue or an upstream switch, if something goes wrong in the box, it is not on Check Point. At that point, you can hammer down to the cloud. Having shared resources makes it a little bit difficult to delineate. You have to go case by case.

I have not directly experienced the need for scaling, particularly horizontally. Based on studies, presentations, documentation, and architecture, scalability is definitely there, so I have confidence that if my business needs to shift to high throughput and high sessions, Check Point will have a solution for me to do that seamlessly.

I have always had challenges with TAC. There still seems to be a difference in the type or level of tech support you get based on the region you call into. That has been a little bit more challenging. We have had issues with getting the same candid answers where they were regurgitating without looking through. At the support level, we have had some challenges back and forth, but when we talk to our account team or our sales engineer and say that we have a problem, their reaction is very quick. Their escalation internals take care of that. They get us the right people.

For additional deployments from the cloud perspective, we have always had great contacts to get to. I have been very happy with the level of support Check Point has given us for new deployments' design ideas and problems. The feature roadmap they chose has been excellent.

Overall, I would rate their customer service and support an eight out of ten. I am dropping points because of the TAC issues that I have had.

We do use another vendor that does a similar function. The vendor is Fortinet. Both vendors have their own pros and cons. The big difference between the two from a cloud network security perspective is that the high availability model that Check Point has is not what the competitor has. So, you are still relying upon load balancers, and you are still relying upon cloud failover, which adds a little bit of complexity. This high availability has been a huge plus. We have not seen our current vendors or other vendors be able to do so.

We, as such, have not switched. We have a different vendor we use, and we have not made the decision to switch. We are still at that deciding factor because we are seeing where things fit with both platforms. From an ROI perspective, switching would not be advantageous to us at this point based on what we are getting, but it is definitely something that is looked upon as we look at life cycles. We can then make a decision one way or the other to meet our business needs.

The decision to go for CloudGuard instead of our cloud vendor's cloud firewall was predated. There were some implementations that were already there. We have made additional investments where we did go between vendor A and vendor B and made a decision. I made the decision and chose Check Point, not just for the single pane of glass and ease of management but also for the high availability. For the high availability that we were deploying, there was no other solution that could give us the seamlessness we were looking for. We could not get that from other vendors, so it became evident that going for Check Point was the right decision to make.

We are a Microsoft Azure Shop, and the deployment model would be high-availability gateways. We are not using gateway low balancers. We are just using the high-availability deployments.

In terms of ease of deployment, I cannot speak for the earlier years, but I did hear that there were some pain points. That was more of a combination of cloud maturity in Microsoft and Check Point integrations. There were other challenges related to intermixing and the knowledge base. This was when Check Point was new to our company, and we probably did not have the right MSP support. A lot of those gaps and failures were due to the support and not having that strong knowledge base and operating support afterward. Recent deployments, from 2020 to 2024, are different. There is a night and day kind of difference. We had instant Check Point support. They walked us through and sat on the call while we deployed in real-time with our CloudOps teams. It was seamless. We ran into a gap, and we were easily able to fix it right then and there. They were very collaborative. It has just been a night-and-day type of scenario.

For the first implementation, we used an MSP consultant in collaboration with Check Point. We did the recent deployment in-house directly with Check Point.

We are yet to figure that part out. There is a lot of tuning on our side, and we have definitely seen its remediation and prevention capabilities help us in very critical situations. Knowing that we could be proactive instead of constantly being reactive has definitely put me at much more ease at night. There are some improvements to that.

Investment-wise, this is where you look at the consolidation and realize that you might have different vendor technologies that might be doing the same thing. This is something we will have to look at. It is not necessarily a Check Point problem. It is something that we, as an enterprise, have to look into.

My experience has been extremely positive. It was not a concern because I had an account team that fought for pricing for our company. They were not pushing me to professional services for certain help. I was instantly getting a CloudGuard architect to help us out. They understood our environment and bridged the gap where we needed that help with our public cloud provider and with Check Point, in this case. That is what made the experience. They allowed us to scale it well, and that is where Check Point has done very well.

They realize that customers need to be adaptive in their cloud deployments, and they are much quicker than on-prem. They know that in the end, their product speaks for itself, so pricing has always been very competitive compared to other vendors. I have always had account teams no matter what company I have worked for, and they have always done a good job of meeting that gap. So, its pricing was not the reason we made the decision.

I would rate CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten. The ease of template deployment would have been nice. There was also a little bit of weirdness with the licensing models for our on-premise management. That is pretty much it. Otherwise, I am extremely happy with it. They are not negatives. It is still great.

I can easily secure communication between our Azure Stack Hub and local Azure environments using CloudGuard gateways. This ensures that when I deploy applications in Azure, I can securely access databases and other resources in my local environment through a VPN channel. It is a straightforward way to keep everything protected as I work between the cloud and on-premises infrastructure.

The central management feature is a big plus, allowing us to manage both local and cloud gateways from one platform. Another advantage is the unified logging system, which makes it easy to track all communications. Index logs enable us to see all of the logs with all of the features in one place. Unlike other solutions like Palo Alto's Panorama, where checking logs can be cumbersome, CloudGuard's interface is user-friendly and efficient. I have to manually click on every log, one at a time. This helps streamline our deployment process, as I focus on the initial setup before handing it off to other departments for ongoing management.

CloudGuard's ease of policy creation and centralized logging are definite strengths.

There is room for improvement in addressing bugs and support issues. Communication with support, particularly with certain teams, can sometimes be challenging and slow, impacting problem resolution.

I have been working with CloudGuard Cloud Network Security for almost eight years.

We use CloudGuard to manage 15,000 people. We have ten applications and 14 subscriptions.

The Israel tech support is better than other regions because they respond quickly and help us resolve our issues.

Check Point's management interface is easier to use compared to products like Palo Alto's Panorama and FortiManager.

Palo Alto and FortiManager are more complicated than CloudGuard.

When it comes to identifying security threats, CloudGuard is on par with other solutions. While Palo Alto doesn't have zero-day protection, it ultimately depends on how customers configure their security rules.

I'm quite pleased with CloudGuard because it is incredibly easy to deploy. Whether I'm using the marketplace or SmartConsole, setting up the gateway takes just a few seconds or minutes, and connecting to local or cloud management is seamless.

Deploying Check Point CloudGuard has been generally straightforward, but we have encountered challenges with Azure Stack Hub due to feature discrepancies with public Azure. The absence of a console in Azure Stack Hub and outdated versions can pose issues. However, if project preparation and resource allocation are done correctly, deployments usually go smoothly. Typically, we purchase between two to six cores for our deployments.

If we prepare the right CPUs it's okay.

The pricing is okay. I know the cost for the competitors and CloudGuard pricing is fine. It is cheaper than other firewalls.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard Cloud Network Security as a ten out of ten.

Our use case is simple. We utilize CloudGuard Network Security with a bridge to connect all components in the cloud directly to the on-premise. By establishing peering with the bridge, we route traffic to the Google Cloud-based cluster. We apply our standard on-premise environment rules to CloudGuard, utilizing threat prevention, EPS, etc.

The most valuable feature for us is the simplicity of creating this environment. Even though our current cloud usage is limited, the process of setting up machines in the product and establishing an HR system was straightforward.

CloudGuard Network Security helped us create stable VPN connections from our Google Cloud to our data center. This was important because we had issues with dependencies between Google, the data center, etc.

We have an on-premise management system, and it's straightforward. We use it within the same management of our other files.

In the past year, I noticed that the challenging part, especially in the cloud, is upgrading to the next release of the firewall. Unlike on-premise upgrades, it's not as simple in the cloud. You need to recreate the machine, which makes the process more complex.

We have been using CloudGuard Network Security for four years now. We initially adopted it when we began using the Google Cloud platform. It helps us enable connections between the cloud, data center, and hybrid infrastructure.

The solution is stable.

The tool's pricing is not cheap.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My customers use the solution for technical and internal Azure resources, including remote access VPN.

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 solution allows customers to migrate workloads securely into the cloud space with a trusted vendor, maintaining everything under a single platform. This ensures visibility into their cloud environments similar to on-premises setups, all managed through a single smart console.

Unified security management simplifies operations by providing visibility into both cloud and on-premises infrastructure. The skill set required to manage it remains the same for both environments.

The level of confidence in CloudGuard Network Security, both for myself and my customers, is very high. The product operates familiarly, consistent with what customers are used to, and it is a trusted name in the space.

Based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model.

I have been using the product for four to five years.

CloudGuard Network Security has improved its stability. It is a stable platform.

The tool has improved its scalability over the four years.

The support experience can be hit or miss. It depends on the expertise of the support representative. Some are highly skilled and knowledgeable, while others require more guidance. There might be room for improvement in this aspect.

The tool's deployment is straightforward, whether through the marketplace or templates. It offers flexibility for making amendments before deployment.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the solution an eight. The ease of deployment, the single management function, and the features it provides, especially in terms of scale sets and scaling, contribute to it being a solid platform. Many customers are increasingly interested in using it to protect their assets within Azure and AWS, which are the two main areas of operation.

If a colleague is considering purchasing the solution for its security features and licensing, my advice would be to ensure correct deployment. While the solutions are generally straightforward to deploy, there are nuances, especially in Azure infrastructure, that can make troubleshooting more challenging. It's crucial to either use a knowledgeable partner for deployment or ensure a clear understanding of the process before proceeding, as it may be more complicated than anticipated.

We use the product for network security and cloud workload protection.

It's easy to set up in Azure Cloud. The ease of setup helps us save time.

It offers an easy and nice way to manage the gateways, similar to on-prem hardware. It has packet filtering features. Our security operations are faster and less prone to errors. We selected CloudGuard Network Security due to its visibility.

CloudGuard Network Security more or less provides us with unified security management across hybrid-clouds as well as on-prem. We manage both environments on the same console. It makes our security operations faster and less prone to error.

The solution needs to improve the interruptions that happen during gateway upgrades.

I have been using the product for two years.

There were no major stability issues, although switching gateways could cause some downtime, approximately a minute until the new gateway is fully deployed.

CloudGuard Network Security's scalability is good.

The tool's support is good. Their responses can get delayed due to time zone differences.

I have only used the built-in solutions from Azure.

CloudGuard is easier to understand. CloudGuard is very easy to translate and easy to incorporate features. CloudGuard has better features like packet filters, EPS, threat prevention, and filtering.

We chose CloudGuard because of the visibility. It's much better.

The setup process saves us time, especially in the Azure cloud, as the system continually improves.

We have seen ROI through its visibility and through understanding attacks on the workloads.

For us, the solution was easy to understand. The syncing of the CloudGuard Network Security is like that of the gateway on-prem. Translating in a very easy path to bring the features is very easy. I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The solution helps protect network security by offering threat prevention, addressing vulnerabilities, and utilizing blades.

We use it for the protection of our internal services. We're a Telco company, our internal users are on the machines. We also have some external services that we protect. We protect our customers and our public cloud with it.

VMware is our public cloud provider.

Threat prevention is the biggest benefit we see from it.

The network security is the most valuable aspect of CloudGuard. I am a network engineer so it's the most relevant feature to me.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid-clouds and on-prem. We manage all of those environments through this one solution.

It's user-friendly. It's a multi-domain solution. CloudGuard is really, really good.

I have experience with FortiGate and Cisco. I worked with them at previous jobs. FortiGate is easy and user-friendly when it comes to the configuration, but it is unstable in some countries and the routing tables have problems. The configuration of the network is in the same management platform, which might be better for some.

In comparison, CloudGaurd is very stable.

Cisco is hard to use, FortiGate is easy and CloudGuard is somewhere in the middle when it comes to ease of use.

When it comes to identifying security threats, CloudGuard is really good compared to its competition.

I am confident that CloudGuard's Network Security can protect us. It enables me to sleep very well at night.

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. It drops requests. It's not always precise.

I have been using the product for two years.

My team has been using it for five to six years.

CloudGuard Network Security is very stable.

We have 28 licenses. We have 800 servers on our private cloud.

Their support is fast. They answer quickly.

We integrate with NSX. The setup wasn't hard.

We have seen ROI. It saves us time because it's stable. It's easily administered. We have time to do other tasks. It is easy.

Licensing is complicated. When a license expires, we have to renew it and the process is complicated. They should make the process easier.

Using CloudGuard Network Security saves time due to its stability and ease of administration. The solution is not complex, allowing administrators to focus on other tasks. The configuration process is straightforward. It can integrate with NSX.

I rate the product a nine out of ten. We manage a total of 800 servers that host a variety of components, including our infrastructure, customer applications, databases, application sites, and disaster recovery systems

The solution helps to protect our customers at the perimeter. We have integrated the solution into our NSX environment.

The tool's most valuable features for us are threat prevention, HTTPS inspection, and the Anti-Bot blade. Threat prevention helps to protect our assets from threats. HTTPS inspection ensures secure communication, and the Anti-Bot blade is particularly helpful in detecting C2 servers, enhancing our ability to identify malicious activities and protect our network.

We can confidently assert that we are among the top cloud providers, protecting our customers from external threats. With Check Point's CloudGuard Network Security, we offer attack services protection.

CloudGuard Network Security needs to include new features. One specific feature I would like to see is the ability to protect external resources using single sign-on integration with various identity providers, including custom identity providers. Its pricing could also be cheaper.

I have been using the product for six years.

CloudGuard Network Security is stable.

CloudGuard Network Security is highly scalable in our virtual environment. We can easily add more ports, and it functions perfectly. We use it in cluster mode, deploying multiple Check Point clusters horizontally and vertically, making scalability easy and excellent.

I find Check Point's technical support to be excellent. We have premium support, and whenever we open a case, especially for high-severity issues, we receive a phone call from their support team.

CloudGuard Network Security's deployment is straightforward.

The product is expensive but also valuable.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premises environments. It helps to manage everything from a single point.

I have been exploring Harmony SASE for remote security and zero-trust access in some proof-of-concept activities. Also, I'm checking out the CloudGuard Web Application Firewall for safeguarding our applications on the internet.

I rate the product a ten out of ten. We have had a great experience with Check Point, and we haven't faced any major incidents or attacks compromising our organization. It has helped us detect activities on our endpoints.

I would genuinely recommend it. Check Point is easy to manage, implement, and configure. The support is excellent, and the constant threat intelligence updates ensure protection against various threats. It's truly an amazing product for securing your environment.

We use the product to protect Azure workloads.

The solution's most valuable feature is scalability. We can increase the number of CPUs, memory, and firewalls throughout easily. Using CloudGuard Network Security for managing cloud firewall rules is considered easier than using the normal security groups provided by Azure or AWS.

The solution needs to support more hypervisors.

I have been using the product for two years.

The solution's stability is good.

The tool's scalability is good.

Sometimes Check Point's technical support takes a long time when you need assistance with developing or fixing issues.

CloudGuard Network Security's deployment is straightforward.

It took around a year to see the benefits of using CloudGuard Network Security. If you have CloudGuard Network Security managed by the same management server used for on-premises, you can control all policies in one management tool. I am confident in using the product.

We are a Check Point partner, hence we trust the product and the company. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use the security gateways to protect the virtual data centers.

The most valuable feature for us is the ability to run the gateways as virtual machines in our virtual data center. The tool protects the virtual data centers.

The solution's integration with cloud providers has seen significant development in the past months, but there is room for improvement for better integration.

I have been using the product for two years.

CloudGuard Network security is stable.

Scaling up is straightforward, involving the purchase of additional licenses and allocating virtual CPUs to the client.

CloudGuard Network Security's support is good. I would like the support to be faster. However, it is not possible all the time.

The tool's deployment is straightforward.

My customers have experienced ROI with the tool's use. If there's a security issue, it can lead to downtime or loss of data, which means losing money. So, the main focus is on the financial aspect. Security is also one of the benefits of using the product.

We have both cloud and on-premises deployment models. The solution offers protection and full visibility of traffic on cloud solutions. It is rock solid and comes with proven technology. We can benefit from its detection rates and security. I rate the overall product a ten out of ten. It is a straightforward solution that uses existing technology. We don't have to learn new technology. We can use what we know and deploy it on to the cloud.