We performed a comparison between Cisco Defense Orchestrator and Tufin Orchestration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about AlgoSec, Tufin, Palo Alto Networks and others in Firewall Security Management."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."
"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."
"If our server is blocked, this solution shows us why it is blocked and allows us to update the network routing."
"Cisco Defense Orchestrator has useful guides for the steps that need to follow by users."
"The bulk changes feature is definitely the most valuable."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We spun up the VM onsite. We generated the key that it needed to talk to the Cloud Orchestrator. After that, as I started adding devices, it was relatively quick and easy."
"We have quite a few Active Stone by pairs. If they fail over... I'll see that there's a change on it and I'll have a look. The only change on it is that now this one is the standby, it took over the active role. I can go into that firewall and find out what happened... and troubleshoot based on that. That's pretty cool too."
"The ability to see the uptimes on the different VPNs that we have configured for site-to-site."
"The stability is bulletproof."
"In our current environment, the most valuable feature from Tufin is their Network Map."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting of our risk poster in our firewall."
"The policy overview is valuable."
"We use this product to sharpen our change cycle. A request used to take quite a while as we did manual assessments. A lot of that is now done through SecureTrack."
"The best feature for me is being able to look up objects within all of our policies, because we have a little over 12,000 rules and over 30,000 objects. When one person says, 'Hey, where's my server?' I can just go to Tufin and say, 'Hey, where is that server?' and very quickly it tells you where it is, what policy it's on. That is a life saver."
"We are able to discover firewall rules that are too broad and widen the security footprint."
"The most valuable feature of Tufin is security auditing. We are able to check the rules and compliance of the company, for example, what is allowed or not. We are able to check the rules over different gateways and set over firewalls."
"They can centralize all products and provide a correlation about an incident and the response. They can also provide an on-premises solution. Currently, Cisco Defense Orchestrator is just for cloud deployments, not for on-premises deployments. Customers have to manage it on the cloud. We are based in Vietnam, and most of the customers here prefer to have on-premises deployments. Customers, especially from banking and government sectors, do not prefer to do anything on the cloud. Some of the small enterprises use the cloud."
"I've found dozens of bugs over the year we've been using it. The more I use it for different things, the more problems I find... Most of the problems have to do with the user interface. A lot of thought and work has gone into the back-end component to make the product do what it's intended to do, but the way it is presented for use hasn't gotten nearly as much thought to make it smart and bug-free."
"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."
"It would be a better product if it incorporated device control for third-party products easily."
"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."
"It should have more features to manage FirePOWER appliances."
"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."
"Tufin has come a long way when it comes to visibility. What we would like to see is a little bit more on the discovery level, network discovery, which Tufin does not have today."
"The product that we have deployed for our main process gets bogged down in terms of its response. Maybe, we need to deploy a slightly smaller box. Eventually, we need to discuss this with Tufin is to see if we can move over to some sort of VM environment where we can add more processing power to it."
"I needed more help getting the product to work in the lab."
"Our project is running on Riverbed for SDN. I don't know if Tufin can integrate with Riverbed. Other than that, I have no issues with this product."
"I don't get the full visibility. There are a lot of improvements which can be done in terms of visibility."
"It would be better if they modernized the web GUI. The web interface GUI is simple and not complicated, but it's also too old."
"We have had a couple issues with the VMs, but I think it was just because they were starving for resources. A recommendation on what the virtual appliances should have for resources would be appreciated."
"The change workflow process is flexible and customizable to some extent, but there is room for improvement. In some cases, we've found it difficult to get the exact thing which we were looking for. Then, we end up having to go and do the thing manually."
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, Azure Firewall Manager and Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center, whereas Tufin Orchestration Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, FireMon Security Manager, Skybox Security Suite, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Illumio.
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.
