Tufin Orchestration Suite vs. VMware SD-WAN

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

VMware SD WAN is a great solution for tying multiple locations together that are not physically located close. The link aggregation used in the technology allows for quicker failover to redundant connections, which makes the surface traffic seem to be uninterrupted. If planning to connect multiple locations while utilizing the existing internet, Veloclouds SDWAN provides stable and accurate aggregation of connections that provide a good sense of stability for the price.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• VeloCloud is excellent at automatically choosing the best internet connection based on speed and quality.
• It provides a web based interface allows all our connections to be managed from anywhere in the world.
• Because VMware has a strong history in networking and is a name I can trust, we are able to confidently invest in their technology.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• VMware SD-WAN could provide cli access for troubleshooting
• VMware SD-WAN boxes could have more ports
• VMware SD-WAN box could have more applications to provide more health and visibility of the traffic passing through

VMware SD-WAN has great usability. We have had a positive experience with the solution. It has helped solved a number of issues with our network such as visibility in user usage, application usage, and prioritizing critical application network traffic. VMware SD-WAN user interface is also very easy to understand and configure.

Incentivized

There are still some glitches that need to be worked out. As an example, I rebooted a device at one of our branch locations and it just died. That should never have happened, and I've only seen this happen when a company needs to improve hardware on some of their lower-end models.

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

At the time we made our decision to move forward with VeloCloud, Cisco Viptela and Cisco Meraki were the two players we compared against. Cisco's offerings were very customizable when using Viptela, but there was a big learning curve to implement. Meraki at the time was a lot simpler, but we needed the ability to customize some features in order to implement SD-WAN in our environment. VeloCloud was the perfect solution during our POC as it satisfied our needs.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Eliminate the cost of an MPLS circuit.
• Ease of deployment: the amount of time saved when adding additional sites to the solution, especially when you have a profile already built and when you add a new VC you just associate that profile with that appliance. Again, in a matter of minutes, you can have a new site up and running.
• Since there is not true firewall built-in, you would have to either purchase a third-party firewall or the virtual firewall that is supported by Velocloud.

Incentivized