Tufin Orchestration Suite

1. Manual setup and policy management: Several users have found that Tufin requires a significant amount of manual setup for tracking and policy management, which can be time-consuming. This has been mentioned by multiple reviewers who expressed frustration with the amount of manual work involved.

2. Limited support for other brands: Some users have mentioned that Tufin does not support a wide range of other brands, which poses challenges in managing diverse network environments. They believe it would be better if Tufin had broader compatibility with different firewall vendors.

3. Complex licensing system: The complexity of Tufin's licensing system has been brought up by several users, who feel that it could be more flexible and streamlined, especially for smaller customers. This feedback suggests that simplifying the licensing process would improve the overall user experience.

Users have highlighted several recommendations for Tufin based on their experiences. The three most common recommendations are as follows:

1. Users advise exploring other products in the market, such as PALO ALTO XSOAR and FireMon, to consider alternative solutions that may better meet specific needs or offer additional features.

2. When choosing Tufin ProServ, it is important to ensure they deliver on their promises and take ownership of tasks, planning, and implementation.

3. There is a need for improvement in Tufin Support in terms of flexibility and promptness. Users express a desire for more responsive and adaptable support services.

These recommendations provide valuable insights from users about their experiences with Tufin, offering suggestions for exploring alternative options, ensuring accountability from Tufin ProServ, and enhancing customer support services.