CheckPoint vs. Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access

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

I still think Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access is the best SASE/SSE product out there. It just has such good granular controls and up to date security definitions that you can feel absolutely secure in your purchase. GlobalProtect was a lifesaver for me when COVID hit so yes I had to work my butt off to get it up and running quickly and as secure as I possibly could but it worked amazing and had excellent performance after we got it running and tied to MFA, certificates and security policies.

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

• A secure end-to-end network with virtualization to be able to choose the port of our interest and an opening of the same.
• Monthly updates that are sufficient, automatic updates that allow us not to have to do the manual implementation.
• Prisma allows automatically opens an IPsec/SSL VPN connection to Prisma Access.
• Is flexible and scalable

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

• With all of it's unique features it does take some time to get folks up to speed in regards to supporting/managing the software.
• Doesn't always play nice with non Palo Alto software.

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

I still say that Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access is the best. I love their GUI, their policies are easy to manage, the sales team is VERY helpful (especially when support is not). I still recommend them to everyone I talk to.

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

The McAfee product really isn’t a great option. The configuration is a nightmare and requires a lot of time. The policy management has a high learning curve.

Incentivized

• 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

• It is extremely easy to manage who has remote access in our organization now.
• It has allowed us to more fluidly get remote workers up and running.
• Another tool to mange is never a good thing and the Panorama UI could use a little work.

Incentivized