We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Cisco Sourcefire SNORT based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about VMware, Cisco, Akamai and others in Cloud and Data Center Security."Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"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."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"The product is inexpensive compared to leading brands such as Palo Alto or Fortinet."
"The whole solution is very good, and stable."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility that we have across the virtual environment."
"It simplifies the configuration process by offering pre-defined base configurations, including security and connectivity settings."
"It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions."
"The solution is rather easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically learn the traffic in our environment, and change the merit recommendations based on that."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"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."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"The initial setup is a little difficult compared to other products in the market. It depends on the environment. If we are doing any migration, it might take months in a brown-field environment."
"I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time."
"With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features."
"While the alerts they offer are good, it could improve it in the sense that they should be more detailed to make the alerts more useful to us in general. Sometimes the solution will offer up false positives. Due to the fact that the alerts aren't detailed, we have to go dig around to see why is it being blocked. The solution would be infinitely better if there was just a bit more detail in the alert information and logging we receive."
"To be frank, the product is not really stable, although they're working on that. Whenever I go to the technical community with an issue, they will usually say that it is not there yet, but the technical team are working on it. The issues are not insolvable. I think they should just keep working on the product to make sure that the product can become very stable. The technical support is great. I appreciate that. We have a lot of communities supporting Firepower now, so you can find help for whatever issue you have."
"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."
"I did not experience any pain points that required improvement. Maybe a couple of false-positives, but that's about it."
"The customization of the rules can be simplified."
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 Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 13th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is rated 7.6. 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 Sourcefire SNORT writes "An IPS solution for security and protection but lacks stability". 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 Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Cisco NGIPS, Check Point IPS, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and Darktrace.
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.