Check Point CloudGuard vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite

Checkpoint Cloud Guard Native Security Platform is much better in native cloud infra security requirements. It works well, and the manageability of said product is good. But If you are having some hybrid kind of environment, it is not suitable, and the products have more complexity to deploy. There are so many other players to do well in this segment.

Incentivized

Well suited scenarios - 1) Firewall Policy / Ruleset management 2) Where all the products are from Tufin like TOS ST, SC, SecureApp etc 3) Where customer focuses on ruleset compliance - USP violations, and other features Less suited - 1) Agnostic/distributed environment - Tough with integrate with 3rd party like CyberArk 2) FW recertification processes / exception process when complex process is included

Incentivized

• Advanced Threat protection via Check Point CloudGuard proven ThreatCloud intelligence feeds for malicious IP's is a nice feature.
• We have not set up the cloud bots auto-remediation functionality yet, but from initial testing, it looks to be something worth utilizing.
• Having reporting tie in's with our ServiceNow asset management platform is very handy.

Incentivized

• Firewall management
• Compliance reports
• Unused rules and optimization
• Policy Automation

Incentivized

• Support Services - Support during implementation
• Proof-of-concept - Needs to more detailed
• Troubleshooting multi-cloud/ vendor issues
• Should contain all the compliance standards - NIST, HIPPA, FedRAMP

Incentivized

• Palo Alto Networks Integration
• Better/more user friendly api for integration with ticketing systems
• Web UI structure is not user-friendly

Incentivized

Is easy to use, and the standad configuration is well prepared.

Incentivized

Checkpoint support is great. They provide great SLAs and they comply with service times accordingly.

Incentivized

Most products have their pros and cons but Dome9 does everything Evident.io and Redlock can do and more. Evident was a good tool but merging the two products into one complicated things.

Incentivized

1) Fairly okay overall but definitely needs improvement overall Vs the other products available in the market like Palo Alto XSOAR 2) Cost wise okay at the beginning but when client demands add-ons/ more features/customization tailored to their needs, Tufin Orchestration Suite recommends RFE / custom costs/development costs 3) USP feature is cool to use overall Vs FireMon 4) Tufin ProServ needs to buckle-up/Support compared to other competitors in the market

Incentivized

• Significant $$$ cost savings as compared to other competitors in the market
• Long term contracting also helped in cost savings and good ROI - 750k USD approx
• Multi-vendor and Multi-cloud capabilities also helped us forecast the capex well
• No need of any other IAM solution - Some cost savings in that area as well for us,

Incentivized

• I think if you correctly configure your SIEM, you don't need Tufin. You can correlate a lot of things for firewalls.

Incentivized