We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud and Data Center Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"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."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The most valuable feature is the separate environment."
"It provides the most useful tools for protecting our financial account records from hackers."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to work with the APIs to integrate into our own backend systems."
"I can take proactive actions based on an alert without having to interact with the platform directly."
"The user interface is responsive and quite intuitive; when selecting an object it automatically shows the relevant actions."
"We know the vulnerability in advance, so we can take some action for that vulnerability."
"The administration portal panel is very intuitive."
"It presents a real-time database that is always updated."
"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."
"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."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"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."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"The rules are not well-tuned, and many of them generate false positives or nonsensical results."
"I would like to see Test B functions at the application access level."
"The solution could be improved with a greater analysis of its Microsoft Security score."
"The costs are high."
"The biggest thing is the documentation aspect of Dome9 is a little lacking. They were purchased by Check Point about a year and a half to two years ago. When they integrated into Check Point's support system, a lot of the documentation that they had previously got mangled in the transition, e.g., linking to stuff on the Dome9 website that no longer exists. There are still a lot of spaces with incomplete links and stuff that is not as fully explained as it could be."
"Automation and advanced threat prevention have room for improvement."
"I’d like to see more integration with third-party tools. For example, it would be helpful to have an integration between Dome9 and ServiceNow to manage security incidents and security changes."
"The impact analysis that they perform can be improved. It is currently lacking. It should be more detailed."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 7th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 63 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP 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 CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, whereas Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors and best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.