We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud and Data Center Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"It used to guide me about an alert. There is something called an alert guide. I used to click on the alert guide, and I could read everything. I could read about the alert and how to resolve it. I used to love that feature."
"I like CSPM the most. It captures a lot of alerts within a short period of time. When an alert gets triggered on the cloud, it throws an alert within half an hour, which is very reasonable. It is a plus point for us."
"Atlas security graph is pretty cool. It maps out relationships between components on AWS, like load balancers and servers. This helps visualize potential attack paths and even suggests attack paths a malicious actor might take."
"The offensive security feature is valuable because it publicly detects the offensive and vulnerable things present in our domain or applications. It checks any applications with public access. Some of the applications give public access to certain files or are present over a particular domain. It detects and lets us know with evidence. That is quite good. It is protecting our infrastructure quite well."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"My favorite feature is Storyline."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"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 CloudGuard for Cloud Intelligence tool has several significant features that provide security to our company."
"Overall, it provides good security."
"The solution has intelligence that integrates with a range of threat intelligence feeds, including Check Point's ThreatCloud, to provide real-time intelligence on emerging threats."
"It is easy to administer and easy to deploy. It has automated or pre-configured templates, security features, and proactive threat detection."
"On Dome9, you can have reports on compliance, users created, and EAM access to the cloud infrastructure. For example, if some machine is exposed to the Internet, importing and exporting to the Internet when it shouldn't, we get immediate alerts if someone does this type of configuration by mistake. Dome9 is very important because AWS doesn't protect us for this. It is the client's responsibility to make sure that we don't export things to the Internet. This solution helps us ensure that we comply with our security measures."
"We know the vulnerability in advance, so we can take some action for that vulnerability."
"Cloud security posture management is the feature we've been using the longest."
"The most valuable features of CloudGuard CNAPP are its reporting capabilities for aggregating vulnerability information and scoring."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"The alerting system of the product is an area that I look at and sometimes get confused about. I feel the alerting feature needs improvement."
"Their search feature could be better."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"We had a glitch in PingSafe where it fed us false positives in the past."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"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."
"They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware."
"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 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."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"The false positives can be annoying at times."
"No improvements are needed."
"We want to be able to customize the solution more in order to meet the needs of our company."
"I would like to see some AI on the back-end, just to assist with doing analysis and making recommendations."
"Streamlining the user interface would greatly improve the user experience."
"The costs are high."
"One feature of the product that I would like to enhance is the possibility to connect to vulnerability management platforms so that the issues that emerge from the scans can then be ingested directly into the vulnerability management process."
"The entire system is complicated, and the setup process may not cater to the company's demands."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 8th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 64 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6. 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 Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". 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 CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, AWS GuardDuty, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors and best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
