Check Point Cloud Virtual WAN

Name: Check Point Cloud Virtual WAN
Brand: Check Point Software Technologies
Rating: 4.6 (571 reviews)

Leader

Customers rely on Lakera for real-time security that doesn’t slow down their GenAI applications.

Est 1993|Valuation $15.5B|Raised $1.8B

LinkedIn 11K|Website|Web traffic 2.0M|FTEs 6,825|HQ San Francisco, CA

MarketsFirewalls

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Check Point typically aligns with buyer needs: - Organizations that already operate Check Point on-premises and seek policy consistency in cloud deployments. - Teams that prioritize detailed NGFW threat prevention functionality and the Check Point feature set. - Azure Virtual WAN customers that require an integrated NVA in a hub with centralized Check Point management. Where alternatives are commonly preferred: - Azure Firewall: chosen when operational simplicity and a fully Azure-native procurement and operations model are prioritized. - Palo Alto Cloud NGFW for Azure: chosen for vendor-published pricing transparency and a vendor-provided Azure resource model. - SASE providers (for example, Cato, Zscaler): chosen when customers prioritize a converged operational model for user and branch security and reduced day-2 operational responsibilities.

Adoption / market signals

Microsoft lists a limited set of Virtual WAN security partners for specific integration types. Review platforms show ongoing review activity for CloudGuard Network Security and vendor-level installed-base indicators on some public pages.

	Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for Cloud/Virtual WAN	Palo Alto Cloud NGFW for Azure	Azure Firewall (Secured Virtual Hub)
Typical Pricing Model	Marketplace consumption or bring-your-own-license; additional compute and management costs	Vendor-published consumption and resource-based pricing components	Azure-native published consumption and tiered pricing components
Recommended for	Organizations requiring Check Point NGFW features and centralized management across hybrid/multi-cloud	Azure-focused organizations seeking Palo Alto’s NGFW features with Azure integration	Workloads prioritizing native simplicity and integrated Azure operations
Key Strength	Centralized Check Point policy and NGFW feature set; integrations with cloud WAN services	Vendor-provided cloud-native resource model and NGFW feature set	Simplified operational model within Azure and fewer third-party components
Key Weakness	Reported onboarding complexity, management UI performance issues, and licensing complexity	Add-ons can increase total cost; cloud routing constraints still apply	Feature depth may be less than third-party NGFWs for some enterprise use cases

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Check Point typically aligns with buyer needs:

Organizations that already operate Check Point on-premises and seek policy consistency in cloud deployments.
Teams that prioritize detailed NGFW threat prevention functionality and the Check Point feature set.
Azure Virtual WAN customers that require an integrated NVA in a hub with centralized Check Point management.

Where alternatives are commonly preferred:

Azure Firewall: chosen when operational simplicity and a fully Azure-native procurement and operations model are prioritized.
Palo Alto Cloud NGFW for Azure: chosen for vendor-published pricing transparency and a vendor-provided Azure resource model.
SASE providers (for example, Cato, Zscaler): chosen when customers prioritize a converged operational model for user and branch security and reduced day-2 operational responsibilities.

Adoption / market signals

	Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for Cloud/Virtual WAN	Palo Alto Cloud NGFW for Azure	Azure Firewall (Secured Virtual Hub)
Typical Pricing Model	Marketplace consumption or bring-your-own-license; additional compute and management costs	Vendor-published consumption and resource-based pricing components	Azure-native published consumption and tiered pricing components
Recommended for	Organizations requiring Check Point NGFW features and centralized management across hybrid/multi-cloud	Azure-focused organizations seeking Palo Alto’s NGFW features with Azure integration	Workloads prioritizing native simplicity and integrated Azure operations
Key Strength	Centralized Check Point policy and NGFW feature set; integrations with cloud WAN services	Vendor-provided cloud-native resource model and NGFW feature set	Simplified operational model within Azure and fewer third-party components
Key Weakness	Reported onboarding complexity, management UI performance issues, and licensing complexity	Add-ons can increase total cost; cloud routing constraints still apply	Feature depth may be less than third-party NGFWs for some enterprise use cases