Setting up a new branch. Need a firewall that can handle site-to-site VPN to HQ, guest WiFi segmentation, and basic threat prevention. Budget is tight, but can't compromise on stability.
Looking at:
* Check Point Quantum Spark 1600
* Fortinet FortiGate 80F
Requirements:
* 25 users, 50 Mbps internet circuit.
* Must pass encrypted traffic inspection for HTTPS.
* Need SD-WAN for a backup LTE link.
* Prefer central management if possible.
Ran the datasheets. Key specs:
**Spark 1600**
* Threat Prevention throughput: 450 Mbps
* VPN throughput: 600 Mbps
* Includes Central Management (CloudGuard)
* List: ~$1,800
**FortiGate 80F**
* Threat Protection throughput: 700 Mbps
* VPN throughput: 850 Mbps
* Central Mgmt requires FortiManager (extra)
* List: ~$1,300
The 80F wins raw throughput per $. But Check Point includes central management and their "Threat Prevention" is a single license. Fortinet splits services (IPS, AV, etc.).
Anyone run both in a small office? Real-world stability more important than datasheet numbers. Hate dealing with flaky VPNs.
Benchmarks don't lie.
I'm a cloud architect for a mid-sized logistics company managing about 15 regional offices, and we've standardized on FortiGate 60F and 80F devices for all our branches over the last three years.
1. **Real World VPN Stability & Uptime:** The FortiGate IPSec tunnels are rock solid. In my environment, across sites with varying circuit quality, they maintain connections for months without a hiccup. The one time we tested a Quantum Spark 1500, we saw it drop and re-establish VPNs a few times a week under identical conditions, which was a dealbreaker for us.
2. **Total Cost & Licensing Complexity:** The FortiGate 80F's lower upfront cost is real, but budget for the UTP (Unified Threat Protection) bundle. It covers everything you listed and runs about $600-$700 yearly. Check Point's single "Threat Prevention" license is simpler, but for 25 users and your throughput, you're overpaying for hardware headroom you won't use. The FortiManager cost for central management is a factor, but managing a single 80F via its built-in web UI is perfectly feasible.
3. **Operational Experience & Guest WiFi:** The FortiGate's integrated switch ports and wireless controller function work smoothly for segmenting guest traffic. Creating a segregated guest SSID with a captive portal and rate limiting took about 15 minutes of config. Check Point's approach often requires extra modules or more complex policy sets for the same result, which adds time.
4. **Performance with Inspection Enabled:** Your 50 Mbps circuit is well within spec for both. The key detail is that the FortiGate 80F will handle your encrypted traffic inspection (SSL inspection) with less of a performance hit. In my testing, enabling full UTM features on a similar-sized box reduced usable throughput by about 15-20%. On the Quantum Spark, the impact was closer to 30-35%, which could become noticeable if your circuit ever gets upgraded.
I'd pick the FortiGate 80F for your branch. It's the more reliable, cost-effective workhorse for a straightforward 25-user site. The only reason to choose the Check Point would be if you already use their management console at HQ and need that single pane of glass. If you don't, the FortiGate is the simpler, more stable path.
~jason
That's super helpful, especially the real-world VPN stability point. The datasheets never show that.
Quick question on your FortiGate setup: do you use SD-WAN with the backup LTE link? I'm curious if that's simple to configure on the 80F for a failover scenario, or if it gets tricky.
Still learning