Check Point Email & Collaboration

Name: Check Point Email & Collaboration
Brand: Check Point Software Technologies
Rating: 4.7 (1472 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

MarketsSecurity Service Edge (SSE)Email Security Productivity & Collaboration Suite

Published Oct 23, 2026

01Common complaints

1. An organization requires a traditional secure email gateway (SEG) architecture for mail flow control, continuity, or legacy on-prem edge patterns; gateway architectures may better satisfy deterministic routing and isolation requirements. 2. The operational model cannot tolerate cloud-console performance or reliability variability; if portal speed and reliability are mission-critical, validate under representative load in a proof-of-concept. 3. Procurement requires fully transparent, fixed list pricing with minimal packaging complexity; community reports indicate SKU changes have affected price predictability for some customers. 4. The organization requires broad native support for third-party mail platforms beyond Microsoft 365/Google Workspace; gateway or specialized solutions may be more suitable. 5. The organization enforces strict least-privilege controls in Google Workspace and cannot approve the high-privilege permissions model described in some deployment reports. 6. The primary requirement is a single-vendor suite with deep archiving, eDiscovery, and compliance as the primary driver—other vendors (Proofpoint, Mimecast) may be better initial candidates depending on requirements.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations using primary mail platforms other than Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace.
Environments that cannot accommodate the product’s installation or permission model for Google Workspace without alternative deployment options.
Organizations requiring processing to remain fully in-country with no cross-border analysis.

Known limitations (from reviews and community sources)

Portal speed and occasional instability have been reported by multiple users (slow page loads, tenant provisioning errors).
Email flow depends on Check Point cloud endpoints; outages in underlying infrastructure have been associated with delivery issues in anecdotal reports.
Integration breadth is primarily optimized for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace; other mail platforms may have limited support.

Roadmap and visibility

Product updates are relatively frequent, but publicly documented roadmap commitments with precise delivery dates are not consistently available.

Scale considerations

Public sources do not provide explicit scale limits (messages/day, tenants, objects). MSPs and large enterprises are advised to validate performance with representative scale scenarios during proof-of-concept testing.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by vendor materials and user signals

API/in-line protection for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace, presented as an alternative to gateway architectures.
Collaboration application protection (Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, Slack, Dropbox, Google Drive), which extends scanning and policy enforcement beyond email.
Data residency options with documented ability to restrict storage to certain jurisdictions (example: Canada), while noting processing may still occur in other regions.

Areas where competitors may have clearer advantages

Proofpoint: breadth of enterprise email security features and adjacent products, and a long market presence.
Microsoft: integration and reduced friction for organizations already standardized on Microsoft 365.
Abnormal: market recognition for behavior- and identity-centric approaches to BEC detection and simplified packaging in some vendor positioning.

03Field reports

Review platforms (G2, Gartner Peer Insights, PeerSpot)

G2, Gartner Peer Insights, and PeerSpot host product review pages for Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration. Access to full review text or specific content may require login or other access controls.

Community / social (Reddit) — reported positive feedback

Examples of positive sentiment from community discussions include statements from administrators who noted that API-based deployment reduced disruption compared with gateway cutovers, as well as anecdotal reports of lower-than-expected quarantine restore rates in certain deployments.

Community / social — reported criticism and frustration

Community discussions include recurring themes such as: - Portal performance and administration user-experience concerns (slow UI responses, quarantine delays). - Tenant management and portal reliability issues during trial or provisioning. - Reported licensing/packaging changes that may affect cost predictability. - Dependency on cloud infrastructure, where outages in underlying cloud services were associated with operational impact in some anecdotal reports.

Reasons cited for adoption in community threads

Recurring rationale in accessible discussions:

Perceived higher phishing/BEC detection rates compared with some legacy gateways.
Preference for API-based deployment to avoid MX cutover in certain environments.
Need for collaboration application and file scanning in addition to email protection.
MSP multi-tenant management capabilities reported as a factor (noting that portal reliability issues can mitigate this benefit).

Reasons cited for hesitation or churn

Administrative portal stability and performance.
Packaging and pricing changes leading to renewal uncertainty.
Permissions and privilege concerns during installation for Google Workspace.

Public case studies: availability

Check Point publishes solution briefs, webinars, and partner materials. Independently validated case studies with customer-controlled metrics were limited or not readily available in the open sources captured for this report.

Vendor- and partner-published claims (directional)

- Vendor and partner materials present efficacy metrics and analyst rankings. For example, partner announcements and press releases include high block-rate claims for phishing and references to analyst placements. Critical evaluation: - Such metrics and rankings are directional: the underlying methodologies (dataset selection, timeframe, definitions of phishing, false positive treatment, and tenant mix) are not fully disclosed in the public marketing materials reviewed. Prospective customers should request vendor-provided test methodologies, false-positive benchmarks, and references for comparable vertical deployments.

04Best fit

Best-fit company sizes (practical ranges)

Mid-market to enterprise: mid-sized to very large organizations (hundreds to many thousands of employees), particularly where Microsoft 365 usage is significant.
MSPs/MSSPs: organizations that manage multiple tenants, subject to validation of portal scalability and reliability in proof-of-concept testing.

Industries

Common fits: regulated industries (finance, healthcare, public sector) where email risk is significant and compliance or residency factors are important.
Also relevant: education and SMB segments served via MSP channels (based on community discussion).

Roles/personas

Decision makers: CISO, head of security, IT director, MSP practice lead.
End users affected: the broad employee population (quarantine interactions, phishing reporting workflows).

Pain points addressed

Phishing and BEC bypassing native controls.
Need to protect collaboration applications and file storage in addition to email.
Detection of suspicious inbox rules and account takeover indicators.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration (historically Avanan) is a cloud email security and collaboration/SaaS protection product designed primarily for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. It focuses on stopping phishing, business email compromise (BEC), malware attachments/links, and account takeover, and extends controls into collaboration and file storage applications (e.g., Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint, Google Drive, Slack, Dropbox). The solution is delivered via API/in-line methods as an alternative to traditional email gateways. Check Point’s administration documentation describes an inspection flow in which messages are intercepted and analyzed using Check Point services (e.g., ThreatCloud) before delivery; the product also monitors user behavior patterns to detect compromise signals. These operational details are taken from vendor documentation and not independently verified in this report.

Target market and positioning

- Primary buyers: security teams, IT administrators, MSPs/MSSPs supporting Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace. - Typical use cases: augmenting or replacing Microsoft/Google native protections; replacing legacy SEG/gateways (Mimecast/Barracuda/Proofpoint gateway-style deployments); adding collaboration-application security and SaaS posture checks. - Positioning themes reported by the vendor and observed in market commentary: API/in-line deployment, cloud-based delivery, emphasis on prevention capabilities, and anti-phishing features that use machine learning models; the product also highlights coverage for collaboration applications beyond email.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Check Point Email & Collaboration including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →