We performed a comparison between FireMon Security Manager and Tufin Orchestration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"I've been using the reports to see what is going on, and that is a helpful feature. We can track down unused rules, which helps with compliance. We can see rules that have not been used or that are duplicates or overly permissive."
"The automation that the platform provides to create tickets reduces human error and more generally, reduces the operational overhead."
"The technical support is very good. They've always been helpful."
"What I like about FireMon is the ability to track changes made by network engineers on the network."
"When it comes to real-time compliance management, it is very good because it is able to compare changes in the configuration as well as giving us a timestamp. It also sends email alerts to our environment so we know if someone has made a change on the network. It gives us the whole picture of that change. Whether it is a configuration change or just a small comment, it gives us the before and after snapshot."
"The unused objects is another nice feature, where it digs a little bit deeper into comparing the logs that it sees versus the configurations that it sees... The unused objects feature will go through in a pretty detailed way and show us which ones aren't being used. Or, if they are used, it will show us how often they're used."
"FireMon saves us a lot of time and it's nice because if you're adding a rule that's similar to another rule, it'll tell you so sometimes you can just edit the one and add another source or destination in there without creating a duplicate rule. It enables you to consolidate and have fewer, more meaningful rules. We're saving around 30% of our time."
"The most valuable features are the security assessments and the ability to identify unused rules or objects."
"The most valuable features are the GUI interface and the API."
"All the basic functions work well."
"I had been impressed with the depth of capabilities within SecureTrack, particularly, in terms of generating insights for a user and firewall operator. With SecureTrack, I've been impressed with the level of flexibility with workflow design and its ability to generate different work streams and flows through the tool that are customized for our organization processes."
"Tufin is our audit trail for all changes. We have to be PCI compliant, and it's the tool we go to for enforcing PCI on the network side."
"The Topology Map, which feeds into our SecureChange - the latter being an automation platform - there's a lot of synergy between the two."
"The most valuable feature are role and objects usage for individual objects and app usage."
"One of the things that came up this week was the ability to decommission a server, which we thought was interesting. We had a workshop recently that talked about all the things that need to be thought about when managing firewalls. People said, "A lot of times, things get forgotten when you are decommissioning a server." E.g., making sure rules are taken away and taking out the rule set. The fact that there is an automated workload for that can be helpful."
"We are able to discover firewall rules that are too broad and widen the security footprint."
"I don't like that it comes with bugs, constant issues, and limited functionality."
"The stability has been fairly decent, but there have been a few issues. My coworker has had some issues in the past where he has had to work with support."
"Its reporting can be improved. I am the only one who works a lot with it, and I am having problems in terms of reporting. In the case of Palo Alto, I'm okay with it, but with some of the Cisco devices, such as routers, when I provide the reports to other teams for review, they always say that the hit count is incorrect. So, I was struggling for a long time to work with them. When working with other teams, they have a lot of questions about reporting, such as how it reports, and we are still struggling with that."
"I think that having a more open system and providing documentation for it would be helpful for users like us. We are pretty adept and can navigate through the Linux software that the on-premises FireMon is based on. It would help us in the long run."
"Our firewalls have multiple paths through them and FireMon falls short a little bit because it's not Palo Alto-centric. I don't think FireMon has kept up with where Palo Alto is at. They started out being Check Point-centric for years and they've never really fully embraced the nuances others, like Palo Alto or Fortinet, have. They don't handle a lot of the capabilities and attributes that Palo Alto does yet. They're working on it. They're getting there."
"The training for configuring new users or operators is confusing because the UI is not user-friendly and has room for improvement."
"The initial setup can take some time, including connecting it and configuring it. It's not something that is easy for anybody to do. There is time and energy required because of the number of systems you have to configure to get it to work properly."
"FireMon could be made more user-friendly when it comes to creating filters or conducting traffic analysis."
"The interface is like a 1990s kind of thing. It's a little ugly. There are many things that you cannot tweak, little things like the column width and how you display the information. You end up exporting everything to an Excel file and doing your work there."
"I would like to see an improved reporting model that can be flexible for us to generate our own reports. The data's already there."
"It would be better if they modernized the web GUI. The web interface GUI is simple and not complicated, but it's also too old."
"Currently, we have to get different data from different sections of the site. It would be nice if it was all combined into one."
"The network part of the solution could be improved. It's too hard because of the Tufin licensing model for the routing devices."
"Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin."
"Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. It could have a more effective approach for creating and changing rules. It could provide advice or suggestions for a better understanding of rules and changing the rules. There should be suggestions for the rules that need to be changed to make them less risky."
"The initial setup was time consuming."
FireMon Security Manager is ranked 4th in Firewall Security Management with 53 reviews while Tufin Orchestration Suite is ranked 2nd in Firewall Security Management with 180 reviews. FireMon Security Manager is rated 8.2, while Tufin Orchestration Suite is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of FireMon Security Manager writes "Makes compliance much easier compared to doing it manually, and automates policy changes across environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tufin Orchestration Suite writes "A flexible, very secure solution that works well in Layer 2 environments". FireMon Security Manager is most compared with AlgoSec, Skybox Security Suite, Palo Alto Networks Panorama, ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer and RedSeal, whereas Tufin Orchestration Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, Skybox Security Suite, Palo Alto Networks Panorama, ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer and Cisco Defense Orchestrator. See our FireMon Security Manager vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
