5 categories · RankedCheck Point
Standing by category
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Next-generation firewalls | Network and edge | 2% | 6 of 100 | 9% | 23 | accepted challenger |
| Endpoint protection | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 34 of 99 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Cloud at 22% |
| Endpoint detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 36 of 54 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Bitdefender GravityZone at 20% |
| Extended detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 51 of 61 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender XDR at 63% |
| SD-WAN | Network and edge | 0% | 33 of 53 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Fortinet Secure SD-WAN at 41% |
Movement
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
By framing
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“I'd lean toward Check Point for the best all-around enterprise firewall choice” GPT-5.4 mini · Firewalls · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Check Point (99.59% effectiveness, "Recommended")” Grok 4.1 Fast · Firewalls · negative prompt · first choice
“Check Point is a pioneer in the firewall industry and remains a powerhouse focused on a "Prevention-First" philosophy.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Firewalls · comparative prompt · alternative
“look elsewhere (Palo Alto, Check Point, or Juniper have better security track records in the near-term)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Firewalls · negative prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“CVSS 9.8 VPN certificate validation flaws ... VPN configurations require immediate attention when patches release” Kimi K2 · Firewalls · negative prompt · soft negative
“Management console can be heavy and complex to run; often requires specialized training.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Firewalls · scale prompt · soft negative
“These platforms are strongest inside their stack” Claude Haiku 4.5 · XDR · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
What carried it into the answer
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 56 of the 71 answers that named Check Point and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
184 of the 205 domain citations in answers naming Check Point came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Names read as Check Point
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Check Point's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Check Point, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at checkpoint.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.
Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.