We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Picus Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"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."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"One of the most valuable features would be the detection capability, specifically the ability to detect alarms and logs collected from SIEM tools."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its integration capabilities with the other security tools."
"The most valuable feature of Picus Security is its threat intelligence, providing suggestions to block and prevent attacks by identifying malicious files and providing threat IDs."
"It's very useful software because the customer mostly configures their IPS and manages their firewalls, WAF, and the DBS according to the latest update, latest news, or according to the situation."
"You have the liberty of physically executing a specific set of rules in your environment."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"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."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we don't require to write custom scripts and APIs. The tool also has limitations on rules where it allows only sixty thousand rules. Our clients have also commented that there are too many manual clicks and effort to do changes. I think that the incorporation of automation can help our clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"To improve, Picus Security could consider establishing a data center in India to address trust issues and increase interest from Indian customers."
"The amount of integrations that the product can handle is an area of concern, making it one of the aspects where improvements are required."
"The reporting and data analysis could be improved. Specifically, the analysis of the results."
"Let's say if a customer's environment has 10 security devices and they need to know that there is an attack that has bypassed their devices, they cannot go and inspect every device and every rule in their security devices."
"According to the attack vectors, you cannot specify which product is failing or which product is working well because there's no agent."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 4th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 17 reviews while Picus Security is ranked 3rd in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 5 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Picus Security is rated 9.0. 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 Picus Security writes "Breach and attack simulation software that provides network, endpoint, and email vectors". 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 Picus Security is most compared with Cymulate, Pentera, SafeBreach, AttackIQ and XM Cyber. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Picus Security report.
See our list of best Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) vendors.
We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) 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.
