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.
"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."
"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."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"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."
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"A complete and powerful micro-segmentation solution."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"It's stable."
"The product provides multiple-device integration."
"Secure Workload's best feature is that it's an end-to-end offering from Cisco."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is security."
"Scalability is its most valuable feature."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"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."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"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."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"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."
"The product must be integrated with the cloud."
"There was a controversy when Cisco reduced the amount of data they kept, and the solution became quite cost-intensive, which made its adoption challenging….Although they have modified it now, I preferred the previous version, and I wish all the functionality were back under the same product."
"The interface is really helpful for technical people, but it is not user-friendly."
"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."
"It is not so easy to use and configure. It needs a bunch of further resources to work, which is mainly the biggest downside of it. The deployment is huge."
"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."
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.