My primary use case is to protect the cloud applications that we store specifically in Azure. 

It has helped our organization with security. We have other Check Point firewalls, so we can accumulate everything in one place and manage everything in one place.

It provides unified security management. It makes things easier and faster. We can manage it all in one place in one policy package. We do not have to worry about anything else.

It has helped us reduce our organizational risk.

The most valuable features for me are related to management. I can use the data center objects directly in the policy without worrying about specific static IP addresses. The data center objects update automatically if the IP addresses change. 

There is room for improvement in how it handles deployment itself, but I am not sure. It could be due to Azure's limitations, not Check Point's. Deploying a new firewall is quite bulky and not straightforward, especially in managing the resource group and networks. These issues seem to come more from the Azure part. It is hard to tell.

I have used the solution for about a year now.

The stability is good. I find it really good.

We do not use it regularly, but I tested it and it is quite good.

My experience with customer service was good. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it a nine out of ten, leaving a gap for improvement.

Positive

I previously used Azure Native Firewall. Other solutions were just tested. We did not use them. We left Azure Native Firewall due to the firewall's slow performance, especially for operations like applying rules. The general functionality of that firewall was incomparable to CloudGuard. 

We have a hybrid environment. We have Azure Cloud.

The initial setup was fine for me. All the complications likely come from Azure. Generally, from Check Point's perspective, it is pretty simple to set up the firewall and attach it to the management. It is easy.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we follow a default or standard deployment plan for all firewalls. It is pretty much the same for on-prem and cloud firewalls, with some differences depending on the cloud, but generally, it is the same list of things to do.

We are integrating ourselves. We did it all in-house.

From the engineering side, it reduces the amount of time I spend on doing changes on the firewalls, like adding rules, which eventually saves money for the company.

Generally, it has been fine for me. I can find my way around the price list, and it is pretty simple.

We did a comparison before we went with CloudGuard, though not for this customer. We generally researched different solutions like Palo Alto, FortiGate, Cisco, and Azure Firewall. We mostly work with Azure, so we did not look into AWS or other solutions.

We went for Check Point because of its ease of management, security features, and cost. Check Point management is way easier. It saves so much time. That is why I prefer to stick to Check Point solutions. Check Point was also one of the cheapest ones. 

The management part simplifies many things. Regarding security features, there are good competitors, and I can replace Check Point with them easily, but it is the management aspect that makes it different for me.

In terms of security threats, I have not done a lot of heavy testing on threats, but my experience is pretty much on par with Palo Alto solutions. FortiGate is a bit less, and I did not even try Cisco security. In my experience, the easy management of Check Point makes all the difference.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The use depends on the case. I have many customers. Right now, I have one customer, and it's a collection of these functions. The basic ones involve making numerous rules in normal network security. I can protect my emails and files. If someone from my company tries to upload something from the Internet, and I don't know if it’s sensitive, this can help protect my data.

It allows us to make a lot of rules around network security. It helps us protect emails and files. We have the power to protect our data.

There's a whole range of functions that make up prevention against malware and everything. It’s not just one aspect that garners my attention - the whole application is being used to defend. Even as the complexity increases, it is maintained at the same level. And with increasing complexity, I become more efficient, so I have to spend at least the same amount of time.

CloudGuard Network Security provides our customers with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premise.

In terms of security operations, it helps people spend less time. Integrations make work more efficient.

So far, it's helped our companies to reduce organizational risk by 99%.

We're very confident in the secure cloud deployments and migrations. We feel more safe. It's reliable and it helps avoid mistakes. 

Everything is in one place, and it seems it's easier to use than before. Making it even easier is a good way to improve it more. When it's easier to use, there are fewer mistakes.

I have used the Check Point product for around six years now. 

Stability is okay. I am not aware of any potential stability issues. Check Point is one of the best vendors in this regard.

Performance scalability is good. For my customers, they can add what they want. This is what customers want: the options to get the scalability they need. We simply need to manage the traffic accordingly.

Every experience is different. Every ticket is different, and sometimes it's a little bit painful to pinpoint problems. Sometimes I have a quick solution. Sometimes I am angry, and sometimes I am okay with it.

Neutral

I have worked with Fortinet, however, not with integration into the cloud; it was on-premises solutions. So, I am not sure if I can compare the two, since it's different when it's on the cloud. 

My understanding is the initial setup should be easy. 

The licensing is a bit expensive. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Primary use case is to use it for protecting the network.

I am working with the platform, but unlike a typical customer using it for protection, we are mostly using it for deployment and debugging.

The overall network security is good. It's big-picture, all in one bundle. It's valuable to have everything in one place instead of spreading across different products.  

Unified security management positively affects a company's security operations. They have one unified view of the security. I can connect multiple gateways to the management and have it in one place. I can have reporting and views in a single pane of glass on the consolidated platform. 

It's easy to use. The management is the best on the market. It's very easy to work with, read, understand, and navigate.

It helps increase our customer's security posture. We can see in some cases CloudGuard improves our customers' posture overall. 

It should be more unified across all platforms. There are different kinds of releases for private cloud, public cloud (HA), NSX, and VSX. It is a little bit different on every platform where I install it, and each platform has many limitations like SMB or Maestro. So I need to know that and decide on which platform I should install it on.

I am using the solution for about eight years on a daily basis.

It's mostly stable. There were some stability issues. But most customers have high availability.

Check Point is a leader in firewall scalability. Check Point Maestro is good and Elastic XL looks promising but the code between maintrain and scalable platform should be unified to have a match 1:1 in the terms of commands and limitations. 

Sometimes the customer service is good. Sometimes it is very bad and I have nightmares from it. The worst thing Check Point did was to move the support to India. There are some good people, however, most of the time, the engineers are not very good, just at a basic level. This needs an improvement.

When I am working on a problem and need help, creating a ticket for a particular issue takes about two weeks to get somewhere. I have to describe the issue multiple times, show what the real issue is but lately I have some very difficult issues and I have good engineers assigned to it, so lately my feedback is positive.

Neutral

Cisco ASA and Juniper. My main focus is 95% with Check Point. So I am using only Check Point. I am familiar with other products, however, I am not using them.

It is very easy to deploy. I have the installation with ISO. With ISO, I can install a firewall, the management, or both of them. I can just choose, and it is very easy. The ISO is unified in the new version, R82. I can install a firewall, management, log server, smart event or a combination. This is very efficient.

We dont buy we sell/distribute.

We as a distributor work closely with the licensing. The pricing has some downsides. It could be better and there could be better scalability of the licensing itself. There are just some licenses which are not on the table. Licensing should be more agile and additive.

It was not needed.

This solution would be more beneficial for my AWS side, for our applications. The platform is utilizing AWS, so it requires further protection through some enhancements, which involve allocating more resources into AWS. Check Point serves as our system. I consider it a business case to protect that application work on the cloud.

Check Point is one of the key aspects of our security. It's protecting the e-commerce side and some functions on the public side of the website. It plays a large role in protection.

The types of prevention functions, such as the IPS and other advanced features, provide significant value. 

Check Point is a product that doesn't require a lot of patching throughout the year compared to some competitors. This stability is beneficial for my customer-facing application workload, as it minimizes changes to the infrastructure. 

Maintaining a stable infrastructure that doesn't demand frequent attention is important to me. For our security engineering team in the bank, Check Point is definitely a key aspect. It safeguards our e-commerce side, functions hosted on the public website, our DMZ zones, and the e-commerce hyper-converged infrastructure. 

Overall, it plays a vital role in protecting both our customer-facing and internal company infrastructure.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premise. We can have a hybrid solution which can be managed easily alongside what we already have on-premises. Rather than than have team layers of management, for example, one cloud separate and one cloud on something else, doesn't make sense. 

The centralization affects our security operations. We are already using a lot of Check Point. What they are already doing has been good for us. However, CloudGuard will add another layer of protection for the things we have in AWS. Any reluctance the organization may have for goign into the cloud, or multiple clouds, will be overcome by solutions like Check point, which is giving us a layer of comfort for our critical workloads.

We're confident in secure cloud deployment and migration. We're already an existing customer and we have a level of comfort with the solution. We know it will give us that extra layer of security and play their role and do what they are supposed to do.  

One aspect that I noticed is that we already have a substantial Check Point setup, so management is a consideration. I'd like to have an ease of management. That's important. I am anticipating the introduction of features like AI or advanced supporting functions on the on-premises side. This would be beneficial by providing insights into capacity and enabling me to project future needs, such as enhancements or additional layers for the Check Point infrastructure. Ease of management and reporting would be crucial for capacity planning and budgeting. If I see capacity increasing, I want to be able to plan appropriately.

I have been using Check Point for many years. However, we began doing some changes in firewalls and handling replacements since last year.

I believe it will perform quite well if it remains similar to what we are already using.

There have not been any scalability issues yet.

I have never had to struggle with customer service. My suppliers are really good partners. They always support us, backed by Check Point. Even if I encounter issues, Check Point's account managers maintain a close relationship with us. Whether through suppliers or direct contact, they are always helpful.

I have used previous solutions, however, I won't mention specific names. Since 80% of us are using Check Point, it doesn't make sense to replace the remaining 20% with something else.

The setup cost is reasonable, and many engineers are familiar with Check Point, making it easy to find someone to do the job. Suppliers and Check Point account managers maintain good relationships with the customers and suppliers.

I use a supplier, one of Check Point's partners, to support us. We utilize two Check Point partners, Indiguity 360 and D2B, to assist us in our Check Point journey and management.

The setup cost is okay. The cost overall is somewhat high compared to other vendors, whether firewalls or cloud-native solutions. Check Point may be on the pricier side, however, in the long run, it proves its value.

We have not done a POC with any other product.

I'm not on the technical side; I'm more on the management side of the product. We do have some rollouts still pending with Check Point. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten since I've never had a negative experience. 

I am quite satisfied with it, as it secures our virtual environment in both CloudGuard and on-premises. The business case was that we have several customers transitioning from on-premises to cloud solutions, and we wanted to have the same visibility and security in CloudGuard as we had on-premises.

We wouldn't have the same visibility or granularity if we didn't have Check Point. 

We have very good visibility or granularity regarding security. 

Since we are using the same management both on-premises and in the cloud, we did not need to create other security measures or learn new technology. This allows me to achieve the same results with our existing resources.

It's quite interesting to see all the new features being added to the solution. I plan to do more integration with the CloudGuard-specific elements within the new policy framework. Although I do not remember the specific name, there is a feature that involves a revision of the policies. That will be our next addition.

We have visibility both on the cloud and on-prem, and we are very satisfied with that. 

It's helped us with our security posture. We have the visibility. We have the possibility to deploy new stuff. We also used the data center dynamic objects. So when we tag solutions, they get the policies they should have from the setup.

It's easy to use and deploy. 

I'm quite satisfied with the solution. I don't have any notes for improvements. 

I have used the solution for five or six years, maybe.

I haven't had any issues regarding our cloud environment. It is completely stable with no downtime. 

It's not a scale set. It's a single node. We'd need to look at the scale set to see if there was a way to get better performance. 

I have been a Check Point customer for quite some time. We do not use other solutions. 

The initial setup did not take too long. I am unsure of the exact duration, however, I was up and running in about an hour. It was very straightforward and almost plug-and-play.

Everything could be cheaper, of course. 

There are cloud-native options. During setup, we had quite a few people telling us we should just use cloud-native solutions. However, we wanted the same security measures on-cloud and on-prem. It would have been cheaper to stay with cloud-native; however, to have visibility in the same place is important. 

People might just use a cloud-native solution since they are already there and cost less. However, my priority was to maintain visibility and consistent security measures in the cloud as on-premises rather than focusing on cost. The unified management from one platform and centralized visibility are invaluable to me.

I am quite satisfied with the solution, and I do not have significant suggestions for its improvement at this point. The product team appreciates feedback, and fortunately, I have comprehensive playbooks for deploying new solutions. The process is straightforward, especially with the dynamic data center objects. When solutions are tagged, they automatically receive the appropriate policies. 

Overall, it is an excellent solution, and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

We are using CloudGuard Network Security for comprehensive security. We have hardware appliances from Check Point, and we also have their firewall installed.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid-clouds as well as on-prem. It has improved our security posture. 

CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce our organizational risk. It has not yet helped us save time and costs because we are understaffed. However, it has helped to see what is happening and what we should mitigate or allow to happen.

It gives us all-encompassing security and overview. Previously, we did not have any kind of overview of what was happening with the network.

The interface is unifying all the data in one place. I can see the network side and the policy attached to using USB devices. Everything is stored and related.

A Check Point problem was that there were different solutions, and each had its own interface, section, and logs. Things are going great with the new feature that consolidates all the data from those systems in one place. Right now, I am not sure what improvements are needed. We are having occasional issues related to gateways, but we are still analyzing it.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for the past six months since I joined the company.

Until now, it has been stable, but we have had occasional issues with two gateways that used to break or are broken. We are not sure yet. We are still analyzing it. We might be sending it to the warranty team.

We implemented it keeping in mind all the requirements in terms of licenses, hardware, and other things. Everything is pretty much as we needed. We have no plans to upscale it. However, I am waiting for the OS version R82 to see how we can add more data on the fly.

So far, customer service has been almost great. We have had some issues, such as needing to escalate every time because one gateway was not working at some point. We had an endless loop of emails trying to fix this, and the suggestion was to reinstall the gateway and do it from scratch, which was not an option at that point because it would leave that specific location without access, and business hours did not permit it. Other than that, things went smoothly most of the time.

Positive

Previously, we only had security with a basic VPN and firewall in place.

I would rate CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

We are primarily on-premise. We also use Azure for cloud services, mostly for VPN. We use it as the active directory to authorize access to the VPN, which is helpful. 

However, as a healthcare organization in Germany, it is very challenging to get cloud solutions like CloudGuard approved. Cloud solutions must be located in Germany or Frankfurt, where all the data centers are situated. This requirement makes it somewhat difficult, however, otherwise, it is manageable.

We have a lot of audits in the healthcare industry and Check Point has become an industry standard.

One aspect I appreciate is that it is not overly complicated. Many solutions are sometimes difficult to set up. Check Point has been very straightforward. Especially in the last one to two years, it has become easier to manage with each patch. I have several coworkers who have used it for a long time, and they all mentioned that it was much more difficult to use or update five years ago. It has become less complex to use yet more complex in terms of infrastructure. 

Check Point offers unified security management across hybrids, clouds, as well as on on-premise. We have Azure for cloud, however it is mostly for VPN. We have the active directory to get to authorize yourself into the VPN. CloudGuard helps with that. As a healthcare organization in Germany, it's very difficult to get approval for clouds. If you want to have the cloud approved, it has to be in Germany or in Frankfurt where all the data centers are. That makes it a little bit difficult to be on cloud vs on-prem. Other than that, it's fine.

I honestly do not know how it can be improved anymore. There are probably people with more knowledge or experience who could suggest improvements. Most of the solutions we have used have been straightforward and effective. 

Occasionally, there is a strange bug, however, we just contact Check Point for a hotfix if we are a significant client. And since that is our situation, the solution works. 

There might be a possibility for Check Point to offer more training opportunities for users to get to know the solution better, perhaps through courses or similar resources. However, it depends on our company's arrangements with Check Point. In our case, we have a vendor involved. Everything we do with Check Point must go through the vendor first, which is somewhat inconvenient. It would be easier to deal with Check Point directly, however, it depends on the vendor. 

There is a wealth of material available online for those technically inclined. In this fast-paced industry, we must continue learning. Courses or online meetings, like Zoom or Teams sessions, for one or two hours each week, would be helpful. 

Despite using it for a long time, there are always new features. For example, just last week, I discovered a new feature that had been in the software for years yet it was not visible due to its placement behind multiple menus. Teaching sessions would be beneficial, yet it is our responsibility to learn, so we cannot entirely rely on Check Point.

We have been using Check Point for at least ten years now. Our organization has used it for that long. It's a healthcare system with 130 hospitals. 

The solution is stable. Most Check Point solutions are stable.

Since we are primarily using Azure, scalability is not currently a concern. It could become relevant in the future, but as a healthcare organization, transitioning to the cloud is challenging, especially in Germany.

Customer service depends on the issue. Sometimes, there are bugs, and we have to wait for a customized patch. For instance, we had a random bug where CPU usage spiked inexplicably, preventing access to the appliances. Restarting resolved the issue, but the cause remains unknown. 

Typically, we deal with our partner and they advise us to create a Check Point ticket. It raises the question of why we have a partner. I do not deal with customer support often, however, if I report a bug, it is resolved within a month or two. It is not usually a critical bug, just minor issues that prompt curiosity.

Positive

90% to 95% of our infrastructure is on-premises in order to connect it to the cloud. 

The deployment was handled by someone else. I simply work with it. 

The point of Check Point isn't necessarily to gain an ROI. A company just has to pay the price. You don't get money out of it. 

I'm not directly aware of the pricing. Most Check Point solutions are costly, however, they are the industry standard, so the cost is necessary. Especially in a healthcare organization, skimping on IT security is inadvisable. Losing patient data could cost four percent of an organization's annual revenue. 

For an organization with twenty billion euros in revenue, four percent is significant. Also, we have limited flexibility with licensing, though we sometimes receive better prices through vendors. The company likely paid over thirty million euros to Check Point. However, the technology ensures a high-security standard. 

Many large German companies also use Check Point.

I'm unsure if the company has evaluated other options. 

I have never been involved in the decision to use this solution; I am just the end user.

Flagger Network Security and Check Point work effectively. I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have used Check Point for on-premise network security, normal firewalling, also application control, antivirus, et cetera. We have around 120 clusters with Check Point managed by MDS, and we also have a Maestro environment. 

We have some services in Azure cloud, and I have Check Point's product there to protect them. It's in development at the moment. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Seucrity is easy to build in the cloud and easy to scale. You can create scale sets, and then it handles it by itself, how much traffic comes in, et cetera.

It has helped us have unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. There are only a few services that you can't manage in our on-prem management. For example, if you are using SD-WAN or something, you must use the Infiniti portal with its services.

More support from our partners would be beneficial. A lot could be explained more. It's often a use case that the management is behind NAT, and I need to know what to do to connect my cloud gateways. Documentation is very good from Check Point, however, in this case, it could be better. Maybe more support in building up these environments would be helpful. We are a big company, so we have different teams, and guidance from Check Point would be useful. I need certain things, teams, and permissions, which might make it easier.

I have used it for network security for around 13 years.

I have no problems with stability. There is no downtime. Sometimes, it's a bit difficult to connect to our management.

I can create scale sets, and then it handles how much traffic comes in, adjusts usage, and then scales up or down.

I haven't used other solutions. I've only used other platforms, such as AWS and Azure. It has marketplace templates you can use.

The deployment is very good. It is plug and play. I can choose what I want and what kind of product, and then I simply click "continue" to start. YOu can make your own properties. 

I don't have much information about the pricing. 

We're a Check Point customer. 

It's a very interesting product. However, it's a whole infrastructure, so I have to learn a lot of things besides Check Point to set up the environment. On-premise, we also have switch infrastructure, and it's now something we are familiar with over the years. In the cloud, it's more about clicking here and there to pair it together, which is a different experience. Sometimes I don't know if something is missing because of cloud permissions or if it's due to a lack of knowledge. Maybe more support in building up this environment. 

I give it a ten out of ten.

We protect the cloud by uploading environments to the cloud and making the developments over the cloud.

We used to have an on-prem setup, and the implementation of the new one came naturally since it looks like the previous setup. I know the places for making configurations. 

I am only using the basic protection for the cloud, like a regular firewall, and I find it very useful. 

I feel safe deploying Check Point, and the security lets me sleep well at night. It made a major impact since we have to secure the cloud, so all of our projects had to be protected. We never thought about going to the cloud without security.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premise. If anything looks wrong, I can get the logs from the same place for all the networks. The visibility is great.

It's helped us reduce organizational risk. 

CloudGuard Network Security has had a major impact on our confidence in Security cloud deployments and migrations. We have to secure the cloud. All of our projects have to be protected. That's the the impact. We never thought about going to the cloud without security. 

It should be more agile, as it seems to me that they took their on-prem devices and uploaded them to the cloud. Every time we need a new interface or something like that, we need to make major changes. This is a problem. 

When we try to install a new lab, it appears we need to reinstall the firewall because the interfaces were missing. This took a lot of time, and we had to use the professional service again. I believe this is the point that Check Point should improve.

I have used the solution for almost two years.

The solution is very stable. I can honestly say that I trust it.

On-prem, we are using Maestro, and the scalability is great.

I enjoyed support very much. We are getting premier support. It is amazing. My experience with them was excellent.

Positive

We tried the biggest competitors in Europe. We found that although they are more ready for the cloud, we am more comfortable using CloudGuard. It's easier to use since we come from the Check Point on-prem devices. I understand the menus and configuration. It comes naturally. In comparison, in terms of identifying threats, this solution is more or less the same as others. HOwever, this has more flexibility, We could use the same product and extend it right to the cloud. The deployment was very natural. 

We use Azure and GCP clouds. We used an integrator since we were new to the cloud. We used an integrator. The deployment took one day.

I used Check Point professional integrator. The experience was excellent. The person was very professional. 

The ROI is safety. I feel secure when I deploy Check Point. 

Basically, the pricing is the same compared to competitors. They are all in the same range.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've had some problems adding new interfaces in new environments, we do run into issues. For example, when we tried to install a new lab, it appeared that we needed to reinstall the firewall as the interfaces were missing. We had to reinstall, and it took a lot of time, and we had to use the professional integrator again.

I use our Oracle OCI environment to segregate our ERP system, which is JD Edwards, running in Oracle Cloud.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security makes it easy to create firewall routes and so on instead of the tools out of Oracle OCI. It's inside our unified policy.

At the moment, I am only using Network, NAT, and VPN. These are the core components of the system. We aren't using other features. It's activated and yet not customized yet.

It is more straightforward for me to create firewall routes instead of using the traditional board tools in Oracle OCI, which are complex for creating firewall rules. Instead, I use the firewall of Check Point, and it is very easy for me. It is integrated into my unified policy, so I can use it completely as I am used to, making it easy for me to handle.

We can use it across hybrid could as well as on-premises.

It's very easy to create new firewall rules on-premises or in the cloud in the same way, and we can share them thanks to the unified policy.

CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce our organizational risk. It's increased the security compared to the built-in security of Oracle OCI. It has many more capabilities, like IPS and threat prevention, which are available at Check Point. It is based on our security standards. It's reduced risk by maybe 40%.

CloudGuard Network security has increased our confidence in secure cloud deployments and migrations by 50%.

VPN troubleshooting can certainly be improved. It is horrible at this point, honestly. It is horrible compared to other vendors on the market. They have tools where I can directly extract some information on the VPN. In Check Point, it becomes complicated. I need to open a very old-fashioned legacy tool, and operate it by myself, transfer it to my computer, and open the legacy program. This legacy program will not provide detailed insights; it will only indicate if something is working or not, making it challenging to communicate. 

I have been using this product for about half a year.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is great. It's easy.

Mostly, support is good. It depends. If I have a ticket handled by a first-level supporter who may not have deep knowledge, it could be hard to discuss issues. However, mostly, it is good. Compared to other vendors, it's awesome.

Positive

We're a Check Point customer, and we only use Check Point. 

We are using Oracle OCI for our cloud. The first implementation was a bit hard. We followed the instructions. We had to get the help of support.

We did the setup by ourselves.

I am a long-time customer. I am a technical person, not a commercial person. The technical value is high. The unified policy is comprehensive and helps me to create firewall policies that are shared across all our facilities and plants. This is very helpful for us.

High prices are a concern. It is the highest in the market. However, I like the ease of licensing. It's not that difficult. The licensing is easy to understand.

We had not evaluated other solutions before this product was introduced.

I would rate the product eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the issues with the VPN, I would rate it higher.