We compared Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Cisco Secure Workload based on our users' reviews in five categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: In comparing Akamai Guardicore Segmentation to Cisco Secure Workload, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation has a straightforward setup process and offers flexibility in creating network security zones. It is stable and provides good coverage for older operating systems. However, it may face challenges in supporting large organizations and lacks agentless options. On the other hand, Cisco Secure Workload has a moderate setup process and offers additional controls in security scoring. It is user-friendly and provides a comprehensive solution. However, it may have integration issues and a complex dashboard. The pricing for Cisco Secure Workload includes a hardware cost. Both products have received positive feedback for their customer support, though Cisco Secure Workload's support is considered stronger for networking products.
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"The product provides multiple-device integration."
"Scalability is its most valuable feature."
"Instead of proving that all the access control lists are in place and all the EPGs are correct, we can just point the auditor to a dashboard and point out that there aren't any escaped conversations. It saves an enormous, enormous amount of time."
"It's stable."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"By using Tetration insight, we are able to get the latency on our level accounts and we can determine whatever the issue is with the application latency itself."
"A complete and powerful micro-segmentation solution."
"Generally speaking, Cisco support is considered one of the best in the networking products and stack."
"Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we don't require to write custom scripts and APIs. The tool also has limitations on rules where it allows only sixty thousand rules. Our clients have also commented that there are too many manual clicks and effort to do changes. I think that the incorporation of automation can help our clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"They should scale down the hardware a bit. The initial hardware investment is two million dollars so it's a price point problem. The issue with the price comes from the fact that you have to have it with enormous storage and enormous computes."
"There is some overlap between Cisco Tetration and AppDynamics and I need to have a single pane of glass, rather than have to jump between different tools."
"I'd like to see better documentation for advanced features. The documentation is fairly basic. I would also like to see better integration with other applications."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"The product must be integrated with the cloud."
"The interface is really helpful for technical people, but it is not user-friendly."
"Secure Workload is a little complicated to use, and the dashboard isn't intuitive, so it takes a while to learn how to use it."
"The multi-tenancy, redundancy, backup and restore functionalities, as well as the monitoring aspects of the solution, need improvement. The solution offers virtually no enterprise-grade possibility for monitoring."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 9th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 13 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Cisco Secure Workload is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Workload writes "A solution that provides good technical support but its high cost makes it challenging for users to adopt it". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas Cisco Secure Workload is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Cisco ACI and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Cisco Secure Workload report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Microsegmentation Software 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.