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.
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"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 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."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"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 security configuration features have enhanced the reliable coordination of programs and data safety."
"The product has allowed us to develop applications from the cloud - even with large environments and well-segmented security lines."
"The most valuable feature for us is the scale set, which allows us to scale horizontally, vertically and dynamically depending on the traffic load."
"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 solution helps protect network security by offering threat prevention, addressing vulnerabilities, and utilizing blades."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the ease of use. It was not difficult to learn."
"Its centralized control, ease of use, and flexibility are the most valuable for our data center security."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its scalability. You will only have to pay less for scaling up. Its notable benefit is deployment complexity. Regional deployment is simpler compared to on-premise setup."
"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."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"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."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly 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."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"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."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself."
"It can be difficult to install properly without prior training"
"It's meeting our needs at this time. If I could make it better, it would be by making it more standalone. That would be beneficial to us. I say that because our current platform for virtualization is VMware. The issue isn't any fault of Check Point, it's more how the virtualization platform partners allow for that partnership and integration. There has to be close ties and partnerships between the vendors to ensure interoperability and sup-portability. There is only so far that Check Point, or any security vendor technology can go without the partnership and enablement of the virtualization platform vendor as it relies on "Service Insertion" to maintain optimal performance."
"A threat categorization system can be added to give users the authority to define vulnerable attacks and classify areas that can threaten the workflow system."
"For major upgrades, it's still necessary to destroy the VMs and re-create them again. Doing that would mean new public IPs as well."
"The stability of the solution could be improved, but this is the problem of all the solutions in the market. This isn't just a problem specific to Check Point."
"I haven't used CloudGuard Network Security in the past couple of years as I moved out of the network security role. However, based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model."
"The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use."
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 119 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 "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series. 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.