We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and AWS GuardDuty based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management offers solid incident detection and detailed reporting. It also provides control over IAM roles and advanced compliance features. AWS GuardDuty stands out for its data collection, threat detection, and monitoring capabilities. Users say Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management should improve its false positives rate, vulnerability assessments, and integration. They also want greater customizability. AWS GuardDuty could benefit from a mobile version and more dashboard analytics. Users requested better threat intelligence and integration with new AWS services.
Service and Support: Experiences with Check Point customer service have been generally positive. Some users praised its quick response times. However, others found the technical support to be lacking. AWS GuardDuty customers have reported satisfactory and quick responses from the Amazon team.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is fast and uncomplicated, although integrating it with cloud platforms may require additional time. In contrast, the AWS GuardDuty setup is straightforward and effortless, ensuring rapid and effective deployment.
Pricing: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management to be cost-effective, but others found that the license cost was a barrier to scalability. AWS GuardDuty offers a competitive pricing structure based on a pay-as-you-use model, with costs that vary depending on the level of usage.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides comprehensive cloud management solutions, addressing compliance challenges and minimizing administrative workload. Users have experienced a significant return on investment and witnessed substantial growth in ROI. AWS GuardDuty primarily enhances overall security posture, fostering customer trust, and creating potential business prospects.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is preferred over AWS GuardDuty. Users praise CloudGuard Posture Management for its comprehensive data security and protection. It offers complete coverage of users' entire cloud infrastructure. CloudGuar is commended for its granular reporting, rule customization, IAM role, and embedded machine learning for real-time attack prevention. Users said AWS GuardDuty has limitations in analytics, reporting, and monitoring.
"The user interface is well-designed and easy to navigate."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"The multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"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."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"We mostly use alerts. That has been pretty good. If we use the alert system from Amazon, it is much costlier to us, so we use PingSafe."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"The product has automated protection powered by AI/ML, which is now far more powerful than before. It uses AI/ML in its detection algorithm, providing fast and quick results."
"It helps us detect brute-force attacks based on machine learning."
"One of the advantages of cloud services is the ability to use them on demand. There's minimal installation involved; you can check the latest offerings and make new deployments while dismantling the previous ones. This approach keeps you ahead of potential services, showcasing the agility of AWS."
"AWS GuardDuty helps by providing continuous threat detection and signaling potential threats. Its most valuable feature is continuous monitoring. The tool's integration with other AWS services has improved security. It provides continuous monitoring and intelligent threat detection, quickly signaling any issues. I would rate this improvement a seven out of ten."
"We use the tool for threat detection. AWS includes AI features as well. AWS GuardDuty gives us reports."
"The out-of-band malware detection from the EBS volumes. It's really cool. No agents or anything needed, it automatically finds and correlates based on malware."
"The solution will detect abnormalities in the AWS workload and alert us so that we can monitor and take action."
"It kinda just gives us another layer of security. So it does provide some sort of comfort that we do have something that is monitoring for abnormal behavior."
"The product enables us to check the information that goes out of the company."
"The product allows us to enhance the security of the implementations we have."
"The most valuable feature is posture management, which gives you complete visibility of all your assets in the cloud and allows you to do governance and compliance."
"Assets Management as it provide complete visibility of our workload inkling EC2 instance or Serverless"
"I love the work involved in maintaining and scaling security services and configurations across multiple public clouds using this solution, versus using native native cloud security controls. It is so much better. The different cloud platforms all have their own way that they handle a lot of the stuff that Dome9 handles. Even within their platform, they are in a lot of disparate places, e.g., in AWS, there are five different tools. You have to jump between them to get the same information that you can just pull in automatically on Dome9, which is just one platform. We are using multiple platforms, so that makes it even more complicated and time consuming if you had to just rely on them to get all of your information. Whereas, it's all just summarized and put together on the Dome9 end."
"Auto remediation is a very effective feature that helps ensure less manual intervention."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to apply common tools across all accounts."
"The most valuable feature is the CloudBots for auto-remediation of security findings."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"The Kubernetes scanning on the Oracle Cloud needs to be improved. It's on the roadmap. AWS has this capability, but it's unavailable for Oracle Cloud."
"I would like PingSafe's detections to be openly available online instead of only accessible through their portal. Other tools have detections that are openly available without going through the tool."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"Improvement-wise, Amazon GuardDuty should have an overall dashboard analytics function so we could see what's in the current environment, and then in addition to that, provide best practices and recommendations, particularly to provide some type of observability, and then figure out the login side of it, based on our current environment, in terms of what we're not monitoring and what we should monitor. The solution should also give us a sample code configuration to implement that added feature or feature request. What I'd like to see in the next release of Amazon GuardDuty are more security analytics, reporting, and monitoring. They should provide recommendations and additional options that answer questions such as "Hey, what can we see in our environment?", "What should we implement within the environment?", What's recommended?" We know that cost will always be associated with that, but Amazon GuardDuty should show us the increased costs or decreased costs if we implement it or don't implement it, and that would be a good feature request, particularly with all products within AWS, just for cloud products in general because there are times features are implemented, but once they're deployed, they don't tell you about costs that would be generated along with those features. After features are deployed, there should a summary of the costs that would be generated, and projected based on current usage, so they would give us the option to figure out how long we're going to use those features and the option to keep those on or turn those off. If more services were like that, a lot more people would use those on the cloud."
"Amazon GuardDuty could be better enriched in threat intelligence data."
"Some of the pain points in Amazon GuardDuty was the cost. When compared to some of the other services, depending on how many we had to monitor, if we had a huge range of accounts, as our accounts increased, we had a cost factor that came into play. Sometimes there were issues, for example, with findings that came up, we wanted to add notes and there were issues back then where notes couldn't be entered properly. If we wanted to leave a note such as "Okay, we have assessed this and this is how we feel", or "This is a false positive", Amazon GuardDuty wasn't allowing us to do that. Even with the suppression of certain findings, there was some issue that we had faced at one time. Those were some of the pain points of the solution."
"It is evolving, and at the moment, I will just need it on a larger scale. Then, it will satisfy my demand, initially."
"AWS GuardDuty needs to be more customer-oriented."
"One improvement I would suggest for AWS GuardDuty is the ability to assign findings to specific users or groups, facilitating better communication and follow-up actions."
"It would be great if the solution had some automation capabilities."
"Because it's a threat detection service, they need to keep up with the various threat factors because new threat factors and attack factors come up all the time."
"The user interface could be improved. Sometimes, the visibility is not immediately available for the environment. We have the native servers that come with the solutions, but we cannot see them in the Check Point log. Another issue is with the integrated file monitoring. It would make sense to have stuff like file integrity monitoring and malware scanning available within this module because we don't want to integrate another product."
"I would like to see improvements in the vulnerability assessments in terms of how the solution discovers vulnerabilities or compromised workloads. Also, customizable reports would be nice."
"The main issue that we found with Dome9 is that we have a default rule set with better recommendations that we want to use. So, you do a clone of that rule set, then you do some tweaks and customizations, but there is a problem. When they activate the default rule set with the recommendations and new security measures, it doesn't apply the new security measures to your clones profile. Therefore, you need to clone the profile again. We are already writing a report to Check Point."
"The software configurations theory is complicated, and without proper planning and a well-skilled technical team, it cannot perform its tasks properly."
"The technical support could be better, but I do not know of any other needed improvements."
"CloudGuard could be more customizable. It has built-in standards for things like GDPR compliance. But depending on your business lane, you might want to build your own controls based on your own standards."
"I would like to see Test B functions at the application access level."
"We have had some issues with the performance. In some cases, the performance of CloudGuard CNAPP is impacted. Particularly during the intensive security scans in high-traffic environments, there has been a performance impact."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS GuardDuty is ranked 4th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 20 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 64 reviews. AWS GuardDuty is rated 8.2, while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS GuardDuty writes "A stellar threat-detection service that has helped bolster security against malicious threats". 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". AWS GuardDuty is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Wiz and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, whereas Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Qualys VMDR and Orca Security. See our AWS GuardDuty vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP 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.