We compared Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Cisco Secure Workload based on our users' reviews in five categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: In comparing Akamai Guardicore Segmentation to Cisco Secure Workload, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation has a straightforward setup process and offers flexibility in creating network security zones. It is stable and provides good coverage for older operating systems. However, it may face challenges in supporting large organizations and lacks agentless options. On the other hand, Cisco Secure Workload has a moderate setup process and offers additional controls in security scoring. It is user-friendly and provides a comprehensive solution. However, it may have integration issues and a complex dashboard. The pricing for Cisco Secure Workload includes a hardware cost. Both products have received positive feedback for their customer support, though Cisco Secure Workload's support is considered stronger for networking products.
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don't have to do packet captures on the network."
"Secure Workload's best feature is that it's an end-to-end offering from Cisco."
"The product provides multiple-device integration."
"The solution offers 100% telemetry coverage. The telemetry you collect is not sampled, it's not intermittent. It's complete. You see everything in it, including full visibility of all activities on your endpoints and in your network."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"Instead of proving that all the access control lists are in place and all the EPGs are correct, we can just point the auditor to a dashboard and point out that there aren't any escaped conversations. It saves an enormous, enormous amount of time."
"It's stable."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"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 long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"The multi-tenancy, redundancy, backup and restore functionalities, as well as the monitoring aspects of the solution, need improvement. The solution offers virtually no enterprise-grade possibility for monitoring."
"I'd like to see better documentation for advanced features. The documentation is fairly basic. I would also like to see better integration with other applications."
"The interface is really helpful for technical people, but it is not user-friendly."
"The integration could be better, especially with different types of solutions."
"It is highly scalable, but there is a limitation that it is only available on Cisco devices."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"The product must be integrated with the cloud."
"The emailed notifications are either hard to find or they are not available. Search capabilities can be improved."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 9th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 13 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Cisco Secure Workload is rated 8.4. 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 Cisco Secure Workload writes "A solution that provides good technical support but its high cost makes it challenging for users to adopt it". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas Cisco Secure Workload is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Cisco ACI and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Cisco Secure Workload report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Microsegmentation Software 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.