We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"The real bonus is the fact that we can secure applications, all the way down to the individual services, on each host. It's actually more granular security than we can get out of a traditional firewall."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"It is the collaboration between users inside the company. It is a big advantage with Check Point to be able to work together on the same document."
"The product's environment is easy to work and comprehensive."
"For Threat Prevention, I was impressed with this feature and the solution's effectiveness. It has been very good."
"Check Point adds value with east-west protection in the data center."
"The API is its most valuable feature. On the API side, relative to the rest of the market, Check Point is decades ahead of its competitors."
"I can count the number of endpoints, emails, and collaborations being used in the environment."
"The most valuable features would be its ability to intercept phishing emails and emails laden with malware, viruses, false links, etc."
"The stuff that it's picking up and blocking and stopping from coming into our environment has been fantastic."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"At this time, the two-factor authentication does not work for Active Directory."
"There are a few areas for improvement. One is the occasional sluggishness or latency, which is likely due to the cloud-based nature of the solution. So, the performance can be better."
"if a phishing email were to get through and bypass the product — which very few do — it would be nice if, when a user clicked on that phishing email, they got a second-chance opportunity, a chance to double-check that they really wanted to proceed to that website."
"The solution fails to support hybrid deployments."
"We understand that false positives are always there, but sometimes the notifications are more than expected."
"Check Point's technical support is very much of a low level, especially with respect to other vendors and OEMs."
"Harmony Email & Collaboration could be improved by making the whitelist available on the website and application level."
"Its guides are not great."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 13th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 17 reviews while Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration is ranked 9th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 47 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration is rated 8.8. 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 Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration writes "Has a user-friendly dashboard, a great anti-phishing algorithm, and sandboxing for testing". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, whereas Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Avanan, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Mimecast Email Security and Cisco Secure Email. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.