We performed a comparison between Cato SASE Cloud Platform and Steelhead based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two WAN Optimization solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cato offers all the functionality found in other solution. The life cycle management is always very stable."
"The solution is a simple WAN solution. We've onboarded the socket on the Cato platform, and it provides connectivity. There is no complex routing."
"The feature that I find to be the most valuable is the bandwidth aggregation."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Cato Networks is the CASB and the documentation is useful."
"The product is very simple, and everything can be done very quickly."
"The WAN aggregation feature is the most valuable."
"I haven't had any trouble, and practically forget that I'm using it."
"The connectivity to speed is the valuable feature."
"TCP optimization... caches a particular TCP connection and the next time a user uses that connection he will reach the destination easily."
"Scalable data referencing is a great feature."
"SteelHead works from the application. I use it to optimize traffic from Amazon. It is mainly used for customers who need to increase the traffic to 33K. For other users, it has been more of an operation."
"The most valuable feature of Steelhead is its optimization capabilities."
"The compression of Riverbed is very powerful. It can also handle large quantities of traffic."
"It is very easy to install the solution."
"I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication."
"They should add more sophisticated security features. It should also be integrated into the cloud."
"I would like to see better integration with identity providers."
"The tool needs to be more granular. Its reports are not very in-depth."
"There's no principal in Malaysia, only a distributor."
"The solution could be made more user friendly for the administrator to use the portal. It is difficult to use it for people who are not experienced with Cato Networks."
"We would like the product to continue to improve its security."
"They should include a web application firewall feature in the solution."
"They can't do one-to-one NAT (Network Address Translation) in AP (their access point), and that is something that Palo Alto can do."
"The solution needs to have alert notifications."
"I would like to see improvement in the solution’s configuration and protocol aspects. We have got some configurations that are not set. I would also like to simplify the call detection of some protocols."
"Steelhead's handling of encrypted traffic could be improved because it requires some complex configuration to optimize encrypted traffic, especially when working with Microsoft protocols for mail servers and VPN services"
"One area for improvement is related to monitoring and visibility."
"The application response time of the solution can be improved."
"The product should offer more integration capabilities."
"Application response time and network performance could be improved."
"They should include a network switch in a future release."
Cato SASE Cloud Platform is ranked 2nd in WAN Optimization with 21 reviews while Steelhead is ranked 4th in WAN Optimization with 22 reviews. Cato SASE Cloud Platform is rated 8.8, while Steelhead is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cato SASE Cloud Platform writes "Useful remote worker VPN, centralized management, and simple on-boarding process". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Steelhead writes "Exceptionally stable and reliable but costly". Cato SASE Cloud Platform is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cisco SD-WAN, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet FortiGate and VMware SD-WAN, whereas Steelhead is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform, WAAS, Citrix SD-WAN and Noction IRP. See our Cato SASE Cloud Platform vs. Steelhead report.
See our list of best WAN Optimization vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all WAN Optimization 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.