Netskope CASB vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite

Well suited for an organization that is either architecting their environment for majority SaaS usage, or presently is a cloud-first organization and wants greater insight into their existing cloud placements. It does provide good first-level DLP and will need to be supplemented with a purpose drive DLP control.

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

• Monitoring all traffic
• Protecting your end user traffic

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Infrastructure resilience.
• Growth and scale issues.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

Ease of deployment and strong security solution.

Wide knowledge base and learning tutorials available for customer as well as partners.

Multiple use case be it only governing, data security or protection against threat can be catered and customized depending on objective organization wants to achieve. Talented pool of TAC team to reach out and resolve the concerns.

Incentivized

There have been some struggles with their infrastructure keeping pace with demand and load. Support can only do so much and has to defer to known problems being escalated.

Incentivized

We felt that Netskope provided a more holistic view in the CASB space from a user and usage perspective. In addition, the cost structure for Menlo was a bit higher and was a bit more complicated in the installation and maintenance perspectives

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

• We end up troubleshooting many not existing issues thanks to Netskope.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized