I’ve been studying ElasticXL, going through the official eLearning course and carefully reviewing the relevant guides. I thought it would be valuable to share a structured comparison between ElasticXL and ClusterXL with the community.
To build this comparison, I reviewed the ClusterXL Administration Guides (R81.20 and R82), ElasticXL documentation (SK183513 and the Scalable Platforms Guide), as well as insights from the training materials. With the help of ChatGPT to help organize and consolidate the information, I summarized everything into this article.
I hope you find it useful. I’d really appreciate your feedback and would love to hear your experience and insights about ElasticXL.
With the introduction of ElasticXL in R82, many architects and engineers are evaluating when to use ClusterXL versus ElasticXL.
Below is a structured technical comparison highlighting architectural and operational differences.
Architecture & Management Model
Criteria ClusterXL ElasticXL (R82+)
| Introduction | Traditional clustering technology | Introduced in R82 |
| Architecture Model | Classic clustering | New elastic clustering architecture |
| Management Model | Gaia members managed individually | Single Management Object (SMO) |
| SmartConsole Representation | Cluster object with visible members | Single Security Gateway object |
| Central Gaia-level Configuration Propagation | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
| Configuration Cloning | ✅ Partial, after enabling a cloning group to replicate common configurations | ✅ Automatic |
| OS / Jumbo Hotfix Alignment | ❌ Manual per member | ✅ Automatically cloned |
| Central Monitoring | ❌ Limited | ✅ Aggregated (Global CLI & Gaia Portal) |
| Global Commands | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
IP & Synchronization Model
Criteria ClusterXL ElasticXL
| IP Model | Member IP + Cluster VIP | Single IP per network |
| Need to Configure IP per Member | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Sync Network | Manually configured | Automatically configured |
| Default Sync Subnet | Custom | 192.0.2.0/24 (auto-assigned) |
| Sync Traffic | Clear-text (state synchronization over CCP) | Clear-text (non-encrypted) |
| Sync Architecture | CCP-based state synchronization | Auto-configured internal sync (pivot-based) |
Scalability & Operations
Criteria ClusterXL ElasticXL
| Add Member | Manual configuration | Add on-the-fly |
| Remove Member | Manual | Dynamic removal |
| Scale Model | Static | Elastic scale-out |
| Max Members | Typically 2 (max 5) | 3 per site / 6 total |
| Dual Site Support | Possible with configuration | Native support |
| Clean Install Required | ❌ Not mandatory (recommended best practice) | ✅ Yes (mandatory) |
ElasticXL introduces true scale-out simplicity with automatic image, configuration, and policy cloning from the SMO.
Traffic Processing Model
Criteria ClusterXL ElasticXL
| Traffic Mode | HA (active/standby) or Load Sharing (Active/Active) | Pivot-based traffic processing |
| Symmetric Traffic Handling | State synchronization, CCP control, and cluster decision logic | Pivot-based symmetric flow handling |
| True Load Balancer | ❌ No | ❌ No |
Note:
ElasticXL does not use a dedicated hardware load-balancing layer (such as MHO in Maestro). Unlike Maestro’s hyperscale architecture, ElasticXL relies on pivot-based traffic processing to ensure flow symmetry and internal distribution.
Platform & Feature Support
Criteria ClusterXL ElasticXL
| VM / Open Server Support | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
| REST API Integration | Standard model | Integrated centralized model |
| SD-WAN Support | ✅ Yes | ✅ Supported starting from R82.10 |
⚠ Important Note:
SD-WAN support for ElasticXL is available starting from R82.10 and later versions (sk180605)
Conceptual Difference
ClusterXL
Mature and traditional clustering architecture
Requires more manual per-member operations
Higher operational overhead compared to ElasticXL
Commonly used in traditional and existing deployments
ElasticXL
Modernized clustering architecture introduced in R82
Centralized management through Single Management Object (SMO)
Automatic configuration and software image cloning
Simplified scale-out model
Well suited for new mid-sized perimeter deployments requiring operational simplicity
When to Use Each (My Recommendations)
Use Case Recommended Solution
ClusterXL can be recommended for virtually any environment, from small to large-scale deployments. It is a mature and well-established architecture, widely adopted and proven over many years. However, proper design planning is essential, especially regarding cluster member configuration and VIP architecture, to ensure optimal stability and performance. | ClusterXL |
Simplified operations required; new deployments; small to large perimeter environments (depending on appliance model); limited public IP availability scenarios; environments without strong SD-WAN requirements (SD-WAN support in ElasticXL starts in R82.10)
ElasticXL represents an innovative step forward in Check Point’s clustering architecture. However, as a relatively new technology introduced in R82, it is important to approach deployments with proper planning and understanding of its architectural model and limitations. | ElasticXL |
