We performed a comparison between Cisco Defense Orchestrator and Tufin Orchestration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When we're looking to the policies, it identifies the shadow rules. It notifies us about anything that will supersede other rules."
"There are a lot of templates that are already built-in. They give you quick-to-create and quick-to-apply policies that are typically a little more complicated for people."
"The bulk changes feature is definitely the most valuable."
"This product provides excellent centralized device controls and reporting."
"The ability to do operations on multiple firewalls at once is valuable because it saves time and mental effort. The solution's ability to make bulk changes makes it very convenient to manage things at once on multiple targets."
"Cisco Defense Orchestrator has useful guides for the steps that need to follow by users."
"For this product, they are very uncharacteristically interested in resolving whatever issue the customer reports. They're really attentive, and they address whatever we bring up as quickly as they can. That's been a very positive aspect of the product."
"We use a lot of image upgrades. We take some 20 devices and then we update everything at once, including the policies. We apply policies for groups. For certain groups, like anti-viruses, we send out policies and apply them to every single device. It's really easy and simple."
"Comparing the rules and policy browser is valuable to me. It gives me the ability to pull running configs and be able to analyze them without having to go directly into the firewall."
"Visibility is its largest and most valuable feature. You can see everything or all the devices on the network for each customer. It provides you a larger view of what might be wrong with the network and how you can improve it with firewall rules, etc. If you are talking about secure change, being able to automate the entire change process is pretty much the winner for us. It is going to really reduce the time that it takes for us to do changes, and we can just go out and get more customers."
"SecureChange makes our lives easier with automation."
"We find it to be flexible. If we have a change that needs to be done, it will go ahead and do it for all our devices, regardless of the manufacturer that we have associated with it."
"The most valuable feature of Tufin is rule analysis."
"The time that we require to makes changes has been reduced from weeks to days."
"It is very stable."
"The clarity around the auditing provides the most value for us."
"They need to work on the user interface. It needs to be improved to make it more user-friendly."
"If I make a change locally to the firewall, CDO gives an alarm or an error message and says there's a change in compliance: "The firewall has this configuration but the last time it was compiled it had that configuration." That view of new changes versus the old could be better... I had to log in manually, locally on the firewall, to check which version, which configuration was actually running. I couldn't see it in CDO."
"We had some MX devices that were blocking Windows Update from happening. We found out it was a Meraki issue, but it would have been nice if it had been flagged for us: "Hey, these updates are failing because the MX is blocking it." It wasn't a huge problem, but there was a loss of our time as well as the fact that the updates didn't get pushed out... It would have been nice if CDO had let us know that that was an issue."
"I'd like CDO to be the one-stop-shop where we could do all the configurations easily. It would be nice, for ASA upgrades, if we could do them from a central repository and not have to reach out to Cisco. That would be a definite plus."
"CDO doesn't have a report, an official report that I can check daily. It has another module called FTD, but it doesn't have that specifically for ASA. In the reporting, there are a lot of things that aren't there. There is also room for improvement in the daily monitoring."
"There could be some slight improvements to navigation. In some of the navigation you've got to go back to be able to get into where you need to be once you've made a change. If I make a change, I've then got to go back to submit and send the change."
"The dashboard needs to be more customizable to provide better reporting for our network."
"The main thing that would useful for us would the logging and monitoring. I have to check it out, to get the beta, because I don't have access to them... I wanted CDO to be a central place so where I could do everything but right now I don't think that's possible. I really don't want to go back and forth between this and FMC. Maybe the logging portion, when I look at it, will give me some similarities."
"We would like to see automation metrics, from a reporting standpoint. We would also like to see automation of site-to-site VPN tunnels. We would like to see automation of Check Point application-based firewall rules."
"There was some complexity during the initial setup"
"They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint."
"I would like to see API access into every aspect of Tufin."
"There are things that could be explained a little better for somebody brand new to this system, which could be helpful, especially if it was in real-time while you were working in the system. Having the ability in real-time to be able to understand search query suggestions would be helpful."
"I would like a better reporting feature and automatic alerting based upon rule changes."
"The change impact analysis doesn't even get close to actually solving our problems. I am not impressed with it."
"We were just talking to them about usage for the F5 platform. They will not be going after specific environments, but a more OpenAPI. They will have other companies write it, etc. It's a little different than I had expected."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Defense Orchestrator is ranked 14th in Firewall Security Management while Tufin Orchestration Suite is ranked 2nd in Firewall Security Management with 180 reviews. Cisco Defense Orchestrator is rated 8.2, while Tufin Orchestration Suite is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Defense Orchestrator writes "Provides visibility into entire infrastructure and bulk changes save time and resources". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tufin Orchestration Suite writes "A flexible, very secure solution that works well in Layer 2 environments". Cisco Defense Orchestrator is most compared with AlgoSec, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Azure Firewall Manager, whereas Tufin Orchestration Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, FireMon Security Manager, Skybox Security Suite, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Opinnate. See our Cisco Defense Orchestrator vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
