We compared Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Akamai Guardicore Segmentation provides great flexibility in establishing network security zones and offers strong coverage for older operating systems. However, it may pose challenges for large organizations and lacks support for certain Kubernetes and service mesh. Conversely, Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has a simple initial setup process and offers a wide range of valuable features including VPN, IPS, and URL filtering. Nevertheless, it has room for improvement in terms of support, visibility, and user-friendliness.
"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."
"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 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 solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"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 feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized dashboard, which is used for managing all of the Check Point Security Gateways."
"Identity awareness, URL filtering, IDS, DLP, Content Filtering, VPN, and Application Control are all excellent."
"I like the tool's ability to manage cloud traffic locally without routing it through our data centers."
"The scalability is very good; again, very user-friendly. I wouldn't even say "user-friendly" because, as long as you deploy it properly, you can kill an EC2 and it will spin up another one right away, within about a minute and a half. And it will be ready for production right away."
"The tool's most valuable features are inspecting internet traffic and IPS. We can manage the firewall using shared policies from a single management server."
"The easy management of the policies is great for us because we are a small team and having easy management is great and useful for us."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit 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."
"Clustering in Azure is a bit different, not using the Check Point cluster but relying on load balancing. It's not as instant as I'm used to; in Azure, it might take around half a minute to a minute, and during this time, services could be down. The delay is attributed to Azure using its load balancing mechanisms instead of the Check Point cluster."
"Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDP/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with new hardware."
"They can improve their security features to the next advanced level so that their efficiency in catching the malware can become 100%, and there is no scope for any data loss or leakage from the system due to any issue."
"I would like to see a step-by-step initial installation of the firewall. That would be really helpful. Like in Oracle appliances, when you start it asks you, what's your current IP address? An initial setup should be a step by step and intuitive process. You click on "begin," it asks you some simple questions. You fill in the blanks - your current IP address, what you want to do, you want to set up a site to site VPN, for example, that kind of thing. That would be the smartest thing to have."
"With the incorporation of a lot of AI and machine learning, they can build some sort of a matrix for low-level threats or low-level things that require attention. There can be automation of those tasks so that we don't have to take more time and effort. There should be machine learning to eliminate level-one types of tasks."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"The documentation could be much better."
"Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 121 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security 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 Network Security writes "Highly reliable, great visibility, and centralized management". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Zero Networks Microsegmentation, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Fortinet FortiGate-VM. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security 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.
