We performed a comparison between CloudPassage and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Wiz and others in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)."Key features are the Software Vulnerability Assessment and the CSM, which is the configuration check."
"Policies are very easy to manage on a day-to-day basis."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it offers stability and scalability while being a very secure product."
"The solution improved the consistency of our security controls and the BCP. There has been a 20 percent reduction in TCO. Prisma Access also enabled us to deliver better applications by centralizing security management."
"There are plenty of features this solution provides and the most valuable would be the complete security protection we are receiving. We are provided with similar security that the Palo Alto AWS solution has. This includes features such as a firewall and machine learning AI."
"Prisma SaaS is very easy to use; it's common sense — it's the best-in-class."
"Prisma Access gives us security from a single point. It controls mobile users and determines how secure their networks will be, including from where they will get internet access. We can optimize things and add security profiles centrally."
"To quarantine and clean a malware file provides a lot of security."
"It supports auto-scaling for mobile users. It auto-scales depending on the mobile user traffic. For example, if 1,000 people are working from home today, and tomorrow, the number increases to 2,000, it is not going to be an issue."
"The product's initial setup phase is simple."
"Anything outside of the software vulnerability management and the CSM, things like the GhostPort, need some improvement. The dashboard is in beta. It looks really good, I wish it would come out of beta."
"The reports and graphs are unintuitive."
"Of all the advertised functions, I only find two things that really work in my environment, even though I wanted to use all of them. They're not flexible enough to be used."
"In the CSM module the policies are really hard to work with it. It is not very flexible at all. I would suggest that they change that. Right now, the scan is based on the group that the server is in. What happens if the server is in multiple groups?"
"We are using the SaaS offering. We use our applications for microservices. We use Twistlock to scan containers, and it displays these results in Prisma, which is a good feature because we can see vulnerabilities with respect to these containers. We can see everything in a very detailed manner. However, when you have different environments for a single application, such as DEV, QA, PROD, and TEST, all these environments run multiple containers, which can lead to a very high number of containers. In such a scenario, it shows you the alerts for all those containers that have vulnerabilities. If you show the results of all the containers that share the same image, it is not going to add any value. Therefore, they should narrow down the alerts based on a container. It should show information for a single container. Otherwise, the person who is looking at the results gets the impression that he has to fix all these issues. This is something that they can improve."
"Their next release should provide solutions for the mobile environment."
"I would like to see support for custom applications."
"There is some particular traffic that the security team wants to filter out and apply their own policies and they cannot."
"They automatically update and they should give us time to fully understand what they're updating so that we can make sure it doesn't impact production."
"Its integration with non-Palo Alto products can be improved. Currently, it is easy to integrate it with other Palo Alto products such as Cortex XDR. It integrates well with other Palo Alto products. A major part of our network is based on Palo Alto products, but for those companies that use multi-vendor products in their infrastructure, Palo Alto should optimize the integration of Prisma Access with the network devices from other vendors."
"I haven't seen any SD-WAN configuration capability. If Prisma Access would support SD-WAN, that would help... SD-WAN devices should be able to reach Prisma Access, and Palo Alto should support different, vendor-specific devices, not just Palo Alto devices, for SD-WAN configuration."
"It applies commits to the firewalls slowly. There isn't an API you can use for anything. We've previously had trouble with the egress IP addresses though we expressed to engineering that those mustn't change. They changed several times without warning, causing a lot of headaches."
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
CloudPassage is ranked 41st in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 1st in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 55 reviews. CloudPassage is rated 8.0, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CloudPassage writes "CloudPassage has a bunch of features. Be sure you understand all of them and how to extract value to your organization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". CloudPassage is most compared with , whereas Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Netskope , Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Prisma SD-WAN.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.