CheckPoint vs. Cisco Firepower 4100 Series

CheckPoint performs well as an internal firewall between network zones, providing policy control and deep inspection of internal traffic. It works well for a multi network setup like ours across multiple sites. It is however not a fast changing interface and time needs to be taken to perform changes. It's not a quick as other vendors

Incentivized

When we are asked by local partners which security equipment we use we always recommend our Cisco security products. The Firepower firewall is no exception and we can easily recommend this to others who need a fast, secure, and well built system that integrates well with all your existing hardware and software.

Incentivized

• Threat Prevention better than Fortinet
• Granularity of security policy can be customized to the maximum
• hardware performance is really good
• Bugs are less as compared to other vendors
• support is excellent
• modules work as expected
• Features can achieve out of box requirements

Incentivized

• Packet filtering
• Great vpn client
• Integrates correctly with other vendors

Incentivized

• In my experience, notifications are completely broken and non-functional
• In my opinion, confusing UX for the cloud portal
• Don't try and import 100's of endpoints when onboarding because it will create a mess
• When installing the CP client you have to remove Microsoft Defender and if that fails, CheckPoint technical support goes, "Not my problem, sucks to be you!"

Incentivized

• Too much time to deploy changes
• When there are a lot of entries in the ldap mapping the device runs slow
• You can not make config changes via CLI, only via GUI

Incentivized

Every dollar to CheckPoint is a wasted dollar.

Incentivized

the solution offer the most improvement about the usability by management more firewall in the same context or multicontext instead. The shared database allow to use one object for more than a package target of a cluster or more of gateways firewall. The management remain isolated from traffic pass through the firewall so the disruption is limited at minimum.

Incentivized

It not easy to understand the different features it offers. Sometimes you need to spend a couple of minutes to implement a change or even open a ticket with cisco tac to figure it out. Once support is on the phone with you they know how to resolve problems. But it's not an intuitive tool

Incentivized

The CheckPoint Firewall and Cisco ISR router serve different purposes. Our organisation uses both devices, but in different areas of the topology. The Cisco ISR is a remote device and its function is to relay information to our edge firewall, which then passes to our internal firewall (CheckPoint) to securely control traffic requests.

Incentivized

As I mentioned before, the Fortigates have better failover. I think the Cisco interface is easier to use that that of the FortiGate. My only criticism would be that with multiple CLIs, it can get a bit confusing when you are trying to configure something or troubleshoot from the CLI.

• Smart console with lower operational overhead
• Compliance with Hipaa, PCISSS and saving on compliance plenties
• Less compatibility issues
• licensing model is costlier at the beginning
• Some modules require special training
• False positives may occur

Incentivized

• Very stable and does not cause major interruption.
• Supports most of the business requirements.
• Enhance security, risk and compliance.