We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and Aqua Security Platform based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides a wide range of data security measures, including incident detection and detailed reporting. It also offers IAM role control and governance support. Aqua Security Platform excels in container security and on-demand patching. Users also liked its sandboxing features. Check Point CloudGuard could enhance its false positive rate and vulnerability assessments. Aqua Security Platform could reduce its resource consumption optimization while improving its log ingestion and integration with other tools.
Service and Support: Customers have generally expressed satisfaction with Check Point customer service, noting quick response times and positive support experiences, but some users say there is room for improvement. Aqua Security Platform's customer service has also been praised for being responsive and helpful, although a few users mentioned having to resolve issues on their own. Some said Aqua should provide more local support to customers in different regions.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's initial setup is straightforward and quick, while Aqua Security Platform's setup can be more complex and time-consuming, especially for larger environments.
Pricing: Some regard Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management as a budget-friendly option, but others perceive it as costly. Aqua Security Platform's licensing is moderate and not based on user count, but some say the price could be lower.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides a significant return on investment by effectively addressing compliance issues and minimizing administrative work. Users have not provided feedback on Aqua Security Platform's ROI so far.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is preferred over Aqua Security Platform. Users praise Check Point for its comprehensive data protection and 360 coverage of cloud infrastructure. Check Point offers granular reporting and customizable rulesets. Aqua Security Platform users complained about the complexity of its setup processes and suggested improvements in reporting, logging, and resource consumption.
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"The solution is a good alerting tool."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"Cloud Native Security is a tool that has good monitoring features."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"It is very straightforward. It is not complicated. For the information that it provides, it does a pretty good job."
"The solution was very user-friendly."
"The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks."
"The most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner."
"From what I understand, the initial setup is simple."
"Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment."
"The most helpful feature of Aqua Security is Drift Prevention, which is a feature that allows images to be immutable. In addition, one of the main reasons we went with Aqua Security is because it provides strong protection when it comes to runtime security."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"Helps identify and correct misconfigurations in cloud environments, ensuring that infrastructure and applications are secure and optimized."
"The tool is also very intuitive; its dashboards are very complete and provide a lot of valuable information for decision-making to improve security."
"Checkpoint posture management gives you visibility across your entire cloud infrastructure, so it helps you with management, maintenance, and compliance. With visibility across all these cloud platforms, you can protect against compromised credentials or identity theft."
"It is easy to administer and easy to deploy. It has automated or pre-configured templates, security features, and proactive threat detection."
"The rulesets and the findings are valuable. The actual core functionality of it and the efficacy of events are great."
"The CloudGuard for Cloud Intelligence tool has several significant features that provide security to our company."
"Almost all the features are valuable, but the most important is proactive threat detection. The overall administration, seamless integration, and being able to have one platform for monitoring our applications for suspicious activities and any potential security threats are also valuable."
"The audit feature is the most valuable for compliance reasons. It gives you a full view of the whole environment, no matter how many accounts you have in AWS or Azure. You have it all under one umbrella."
"One of our use cases was setting up a firewall for our endpoints, specifically for our remote users... We were hoping to utilize SentinelOne's firewall capabilities, but there were limitations on how many URLs we could implement. Because of those limitations on the number of URLs, we weren't able to utilize that feature in the way we had hoped to."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"Currently, we would have to export our vulnerability report to an .xlsx file, and review it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then we sort of compile a list from there. It would be cool if there was a way to actually toggle multiple applications for review and then see those file paths on multiple users rather than only one user at a time or only one application at a time."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"I export CSV. I cannot export graphs. Restricting it to the CSV format has its own disadvantages. These are all machine IP addresses and information. I cannot change it to the JSON format. The export functionality can be improved."
"Whenever I view the processes and the process aspect, it takes a long time to load."
"It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better."
"We use PingSafe and also SentinelOne. If PingSafe integrated some of the endpoint security features of SentinelOne, it would be the perfect one-stop solution for everything. We wouldn't need to switch between the products. At my organization, I am responsible for endpoint security and vulnerability management. Integrating both functions into one application would be ideal because I could see all the alerts, heat maps, and reports in one console."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"Sometimes I got stressed with the UI."
"Aqua Security could provide more open documentation so that their learning resources can be more easily accessed and searched through online. Right now, a lot of the documentation is closed and not available to the public."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"In the next release, Aqua Security should add the ability to automatically send reports to customers."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"The Check Point solution is somewhat expensive."
"The user interface could be improved. Sometimes, the visibility is not immediately available for the environment. We have the native servers that come with the solutions, but we cannot see them in the Check Point log. Another issue is with the integrated file monitoring. It would make sense to have stuff like file integrity monitoring and malware scanning available within this module because we don't want to integrate another product."
"Especially with cloud security, there's too much clutter on the screen and too many things going on."
"Almost all features are good, however, they still require improvements to the code security portion on which integration with the major source code repository is required."
"The main issue that we found with Dome9 is that we have a default rule set with better recommendations that we want to use. So, you do a clone of that rule set, then you do some tweaks and customizations, but there is a problem. When they activate the default rule set with the recommendations and new security measures, it doesn't apply the new security measures to your clones profile. Therefore, you need to clone the profile again. We are already writing a report to Check Point."
"I am not a technical person, but generically, the user interface can be a little more intuitive. Our staff has trained network security and cloud security professionals, and they get it, but when you are trying to get to the customers to be able to pick it up and maintain it, it can be a bit difficult."
"Making basic rules is easy, but it's complex if you want to do something a little more nuanced. I've been unable to make some rules that I wanted. I couldn't evaluate some values or parameters of the components I look for. I haven't always been able to assess them."
"The Check Point Infinity admin portal sometimes freezes."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 11th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 16 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 8th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 64 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and SUSE NeuVector, whereas Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, AWS GuardDuty, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
