In our comparison of Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect is the best option with a higher overall Wheelhouse Score. Wheelhouse Score uses a combination of feature and pricing comparison data, average user ratings, and editorial reviews to score software vendors on a scale of 1-10.
* Vendor does not share prices.
* Vendor does not share prices.
Check Point excels with its quick setup, easy management tools, and lightning-fast performance. Additionally, the reports are simple. It's amazing how much their new Maestro technology pushes hardware efficiency. The expensive price is my sole complaint. However, Check Point is hard to surpass for seamless scalability and rock-solid stability.
Ease of deployment, friendly management and reporting GUI
High price
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
I was quite satisfied with Checkpoint's firewall because of its very simple setup wizard and informative security reports. Although these functions are standard, Checkpoint performs them incredibly effectively. Administrators are provided with a comprehensive overview of their network's security by the straightforward and comprehensive reports. However, there is room for improvement in the log storage capacity, particularly for SMB clients who want all-in-one solutions. More internal storage may be desired by some users, even though integration with external log servers is a benefit.
Simple Installation, centralized security
Limited Log Holding Capacity
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Check Point excels with its quick setup, easy management tools, and lightning-fast performance. Additionally, the reports are simple. It's amazing how much their new Maestro technology pushes hardware efficiency. The expensive price is my sole complaint. However, Check Point is hard to surpass for seamless scalability and rock-solid stability.
Ease of deployment, friendly management and reporting GUI
High price
I was quite satisfied with Checkpoint's firewall because of its very simple setup wizard and informative security reports. Although these functions are standard, Checkpoint performs them incredibly effectively. Administrators are provided with a comprehensive overview of their network's security by the straightforward and comprehensive reports. However, there is room for improvement in the log storage capacity, particularly for SMB clients who want all-in-one solutions. More internal storage may be desired by some users, even though integration with external log servers is a benefit.
Simple Installation, centralized security
Limited Log Holding Capacity
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Add suggested to comparison
In our rating and review comparison of Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect, Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) has 9 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) is 4.33 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) has stronger overall reviews.
Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Workflow Automation, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Reminders/Alerts, Report Management, Systems/Administrative, Customizable Items, Integration Options, Compliance Accreditations, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW).
In our pricing comparison of Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect's pricing starts at 0/month and is more affordable compared to ThreatConnect's starting cost of 0/month.
Our comparison of Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, meets requirements, ease of admin. Check Point Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW) scores higher in learning curve, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
