Tempered Airwall vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite

It's very well suited for geographically dispersed organizations, where deploying and managing remote firewalls and other network security functions aren't practical. Once deployed, and the deployment isn't difficult after planning and understanding the data flows of the IoT devices, the system is easily managed and flexible. You're able to allow front line operations people to add devices into a role without sacrificing the integrity of the security model.

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

• Low capital and support cost structures.
• Ease of deployment.
• Ability to work over the existing network.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Integration with third-party security controls.
• Automating the on-boarding of devices.
• Reporting needs to be more detailed.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

It's pretty darned good for a new company. We had to hash through a couple of instances that no one had ever run into, but once we got to the right person on the engineering team, they were able to work through the solution pretty quickly. The nice thing is, unlike Cisco, once you fix something, you don't find three new things that have to be changed.

Incentivized

The cost and complexity vs. ISE is as different as Uber and Lift are from trying to take a taxi in Duluth, Minnesota. The complexity of Cisco's IoT security is a joke. It was going to take us over a year just to deploy all the Cisco equipment, and that was if we could have gotten it all working together. We got the entire project deployed in just under 3 months, and that includes working out all the bugs and logistics. Honestly, I don't think all the Cisco parts would have ever been running like Cisco promised it would. It's just way too complicated.

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

• Capital cost to deploy was 1/4 the cost of doing Cisco.
• People and time frame to do the entire deployment was 1/12th the time/people to complete the installation.
• On-going management is being done without adding staff.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized