VMware Cloud Director vs. VMware Cloud Foundation vs. Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)

If you have a lot of customers that all need to have a separate place to work in, without the possibility of getting in each other way, and you want to safe yourself a lot of work. Than I strongly recommend you Cloud director. Ofcourse, only if you have a VMware environment as your working environment. If you just have a small group of customers and you can easily handle the work that's coming from it, then it is overkill to add cloud director to your environment. In a later station, you can always introduce cloud director (so tis never to late if you still want to use it)

Incentivized

It is best suited for an on-premise cloud solution where customer can shift their entire production environment. Also, the customer has a preference for a Homogenous Infrastructure Environment where budget is not a challenge. It is not at all suited for a Heterogenous Environment, e.g., a Public cloud where integration becomes a huge issue, also in SMB sections where budget is challenging.

Incentivized

It's really challenging at times to contend with multiple vulnerabilities on a daily basis, and having a way to make sense of what actually needs to be prioritized and what can be shifted further down the task list is extremely helpful. Because the solution suggests what your next step should be in mitigating a specific vulnerability, it helps us save time and research by enabling us to immediately take action after being informed about an issue.

Incentivized

• Building virtual racks
• Managing the customers' network and security
• Simplicity but the completeness of IaaS solution
• Integration with major software providers

Incentivized

• Cloud enabled Solution.
• Support Container based Apps.
• Cost efficient.
• Supports both Public and Private Environments.

Incentivized

• Identifies vulnerabilities and they are easily understood.
• Easy to identify remedies in an instant.
• Campaign feature is a true time saver
• Our CSM, Nino, is the best I have ever worked with!

Incentivized

• The add-on/extension required on the internet browser sometimes are difficult to get working at first. We've experience instances where the add-on/extension latest versions will not work and have to downgrade to an older version.
• The server console lacks features and tools. For example it would be useful to have a copy and paste tool or a file upload tool.
• The vCloud Director management site uses Adobe Flash, which makes it impossible to use on a mobile device.

Incentivized

• The Deployment is complex.
• Recommended Number of Physical Nodes is three or more; with less than 3 Nodes, it becomes difficult to install V-SAN.
• Need for better integration. If we go on the public cloud, it is a huge challenge while integrate with an open source platform.
• Cost can be marginally reduced. SMB segments still prefer a separate license instead of VCF, or they postpone their purchase plans.

Incentivized

• Deduping of assets could be better.
• The weighting of vulnerabilities is hard to describe to non technical executives.
• The Business Groups and Tagging needs improvement. Or at least allow tags to be removed if not needed. Now they are static from the API feed.

Incentivized

vCloud Director is definitely my favorite as far as cloud managers. The only thing that compares is Cisco UCS Director, but it has slightly different functionality and purpose. I understand why a lot of clients still go with vCloud Director even though VMware intends to sunset it

Incentivized

Although the public Cloud Model follows Opex Costing Model, it actually leads to very high costs also, the infra model in my organization is not suited for a Public Cloud Model. Hence We decided on an On-Premise Model, and the best suited was VMware Cloud Foundation, which is a complete Software-Defined Scale-Out Architecture. I also prefer a Homogenous environment; i.e, support and services from a Single OEM, so that I Can get faster resolutions to my tickets raised.

Incentivized

I wasn't here at the time when the company compared different vulnerability management platforms so I'm not sure on the reasoning and difference between the 2. It could be that the team went through different choices and found Vulcan to be the best fit. It's hard for me to say why Vulcan was specifically chosen

Incentivized

• Saves a lot of time, and time is money
• Stable, so little to non downtime
• With P1 , good support

Incentivized

• My organization has a size of 1300+ employees, using multiple applications and an exchange mail server that is hosted on On-Premise Cloud, hence scalability has not been a challenge.
• Having hosted my Production environment and Mail exchange Server on VCF, there has been optimum resource utilization with very little scope downtime. Hence have been able to save a lot of funds on Hardware resources.
• Due to the size of my organization and due the data load, I have been able to save on Resource Utilization and Organization Funds

Incentivized

• Allows much better prioritizing of which assets are most vulnerable
• Allow a better understanding of what assets are actually under real threat vs. what is assumed to be vulnerable, but the real world fact is the system would be hard to reach internally, so it's not as vulnerable.

Incentivized